    [Senate Hearing 106-382]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                              S. Hrg. 106-382 , Pt. 1 deg.

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2000

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                            H.R. 2466, 3423/S. 1292

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
    RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             PART 1 (Pages 1-xxxx)

                           Department of Agriculture
                              Department of Energy
                           Department of the Interior
                 John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
                            National Gallery of Art
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses
                            Smithsonian Institution
               Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
                    Department of Health and Human Services
                              Department of Energy
                            Smithsonian Institution

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                     ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    54-218 CC                    WASHINGTON : 2000
    ______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
                                     20402
                               ISBN 0-16-060259-9

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

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

        Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

                       SLADE GORTON, Washington, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                HARRY REID, Nevada
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

                               Professional Staff

                                  Bruce Evans
                                  Ginny James
                                Leif Fonnesbeck
                              Kurt Dodd (Minority)

                             Administratvie Support

                                 Joseph Norrell

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 16, 1999

                                                                       Page
    John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts...................     1
    National Gallery of Art..........................................     1
    Smithsonian Institution..........................................     1
    Woodrow Wison International Cenfer for Scholars..................     1

                            Thursday, March 18, 1999

    Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary....................    45

                           Wednesday, April 14, 1999

    Department of the Interior:
        Office of the Special Trustee................................   129
        Bureau of Indian Affairs.....................................   129

                            Thursday, April 15, 1999

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................   187

                            Thursday, April 22, 1999

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............   315
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   471

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:32 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton and Stevens.

                 JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

    STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE J. WILKER, PRESIDENT

                            NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

    STATEMENT OF EARL A. POWELL, III, DIRECTOR

                            SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

    STATEMENT OF I. MICHAEL HEYMAN, SECRETARY

                WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

    STATEMENT OF LEE H. HAMILTON, DIRECTOR

                                 budget request

                   opening statement of senator slade gorton

        Senator Gorton. Today we welcome the directors of four of
    our preeminent national cultural institutions to testify before
    the Interior Subcommittee: Larry Wilker of the Kennedy Center;
    Rusty Powell of the National Gallery of Art; Mike Heyman of the
    Smithsonian Institution; and Lee Hamilton, in a new and
    different position from the one he occupied with such
    distinction for so many years, of the Woodrow Wilson Institute
    International Center for Scholars.
        The budget requests submitted by each of these institutions
    for the fiscal year 2000 reflect the challenging budget climate
    within which we all operate. Requested increases from the four
    agencies total $45 million. The major portion of that amount,
    more than $33 million, is composed solely of the uncontrollable
    cost increases, necessary maintenance, and security needs of
    these agencies.
        While this subcommittee once again anticipates struggling
    with the constraints that have faced it in previous years, we
    are aware of our responsibility to provide adequate support to
    those institutions for which the Federal Government has a
    primary responsibility and we will attempt to meet the basic
    requirements of each to the extent the overall budget
    parameters permit us to do so.
        Before we turn to the statements and questions, I want to
    note both a pending departure at the Smithsonian and new
    leadership at the Wilson Center, as I already have. The
    Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mike Heyman, recently announced
    his intention to retire at the end of this year and return to
    California.
        I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his
    many accomplishments during his tenure at the Smithsonian. He
    will leave an institution that is stronger and more vital
    because of his efforts and he will be missed by everyone here.
        I have already welcomed Lee Hamilton. After leaving a
    distinguished career in the House of Representatives, he has
    taken on an institution which has been surrounded by a certain
    degree of controversy, given the relatively small size of its
    appropriation. I have every confidence in his ability to guide
    the organization into a productive future era.
        Without objection I would like to insert the prepared
    statement of Senator Thad Cochran.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
        Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming this distinguished panel of
    chief officers of our Nation's cultural institutions. Spending in the
    areas of arts and scholarly study are remarkably small compared to our
    total annual budget outlays, but, it is a rich investment.
        I especially want to mention my great appreciation to Mr. I.
    Michael Heyman, who has announced his retirement as Secretary of the
    Smithsonian Institution the end of this year. It has been my great
    honor to serve on the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents during
    his tenure.
        He is the first Secretary of the Institution who has not been a
    scientist by profession, so he was brave to take on this living
    institution which is more than ``The Nation's Attic.'' His commitment
    to the mission, ``to increase and diffuse knowledge'' could not be more
    genuine, nor his service more effective. He has led the considerable
    reform of how new exhibits are developed and presented; faithful to the
    facts revealed by science and scholarly research, thoughtful and
    socially responsible. This is a difficult balance to achieve. Secretary
    Heyman has managed admirably.
        Under his leadership he has readied the Institution for the 21st
    century. Interactive distance learning, new K-12 education programs, a
    World Wide Web site, world class research across the fields of science,
    affiliations with local museums, a digital catalogue of the
    collections, are all examples of the growth in programing putting the
    Smithsonian experience within reach of all Americans.
        We certainly regret Michael Heyman's leaving, but most whole
    heartedly wish him well and good fortune on his return to California.
        I would also like to thank Larry Wilker, President of the Kennedy
    Center. His testimony describes very innovative programs which make
    Kennedy Center performances available to a wide audience. I'm
    especially grateful for the National Symphony's American Residency
    program, which will send the National Symphony to Mississippi next
    month under a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. The
    Symphony members will not only perform, but will also engage in
    educational programs in several towns and cities. This is a unique
    opportunity for Mississippians of all ages.
        It is also a good example of how a modest Federal investment pays
    off. By our providing funds at a national level for the nurturing and
    development of world renown artistic training, performance,
    preservation, exhibition, and study, we provide personal opportunities
    to millions of Americans in their own home towns.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again want to express my thanks to the
    gentlemen on this panel of witnesses and to all the people who serve
    under their direction, for providing enrichment to our lives and
    heritage.

        Senator Gorton. Why don't we work perhaps just from my left
    to my right here? Your written opening statements will be
    included in the record as if read in full. I think it is
    appropriate, for us and for the audience, for each of you to at
    least summarize what you are about and what you hope to
    accomplish in the next year.

                    summary statement of Lawrence J. Wilker

        Mr. Wilker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
        I am Larry Wilker, President of the John F. Kennedy Center
    for the Performing Arts. Appearing with me today on behalf of
    the Kennedy Center are William Becker, General Counsel; Clif
    Jeter, Vice President for Facilities; James Kirkman, Project
    Executive; and Jared Barlage, Senior Liaison Officer.
        I previously have submitted to the Subcommittee my written
    statement concerning the Kennedy Center's activities,
    operations, and fiscal year 2000 budget justification which, as
    I request and you have noted be included in the record of this
    hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
    Subcommittee. It may be useful to give a brief background on
    the history of the Kennedy Center.
        The genesis of the Kennedy Center dates to 1955 when
    President Eisenhower initiated efforts to build an appropriate
    performing arts facility in the Nation's Capital. With the
    support of the Congress, President Eisenhower signed into law
    in 1958 an act establishing the National Cultural Center as an
    independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian
    Institution.
        Following the death of President Kennedy in 1963, many in
    the Congress believed that a lively center for the performing
    arts was the most suitable National Memorial to the young
    president who understood that the excellence and freedom
    inherent in the arts would be one of America's lasting
    legacies.
        In 1964, the National Cultural Center was constituted a
    living memorial to President Kennedy, a monument building but a
    memorial also, with performing arts and education activities as
    an essential part of the board's memorial function.
        The Kennedy Center opened in 1971. The Kennedy Center hosts
    over 3,500 performances on its main stages each year and
    thousands of free performances, touring performances, and
    workshops and educational activities throughout the United
    States. The Kennedy Center offers opportunities for everyone to
    participate in the performing arts. The Center commissions
    choreographers, composers, and playwrights to develop new
    American works.
        The Center also has an active program called Imagination
    Celebration to create new works for the stage for young people
    and their families and then tours these works across the
    country. Since 1978, more than 6 million young people and their
    families have attended Imagination Celebration activities.
        The Center's recent production of Tales of a Fourth Grade
    Nothing toured nationally last year with 147 performances in 45
    cities in 21 States. This year, Tales again will be on tour,
    due to popular demand, along with Little Women, which is on
    tour this year with 66 performances in 27 cities in 16 States
    and The Nightingale, which will tour with 80 performances in 25
    cities in 15 States. An estimated audience of over 180,000
    children will see these plays.
        The Kennedy Center's arts in education programs reach more
    than 4 million people across the United States each year and
    are at work in all 50 States. Because everything we do at the
    Kennedy Center is a result of the firm belief that the arts are
    essential to a child's complete education, the Center works
    with partners across the country to improve the quality of
    education through the inclusion of the arts.
        Through the Performing Arts Centers and Schools program,
    the Center brings together school districts and performing arts
    centers in 37 States, forming 67 partnership teams dedicated to
    improving education through professional development for
    teachers. These partners have created over 500 new programs for
    teachers in their own communities.
        The Kennedy Center Alliance for Arts Education Network is
    comprised of 46 state organizations that operate in partnership
    with the Center to work for the inclusion of the arts in every
    child's education. As the national center for the performing
    arts, the Kennedy Center is committed to bringing quality and
    diversity to its stages and the board of trustees places the
    highest priorities on making the arts accessible to all
    Americans.
        Just 2 weeks ago, the Center celebrated the second
    anniversary of the Millennium Stage. The Millennium Stage,
    which hosts free performances seven days a week, 52 weeks a
    year, at 6 p.m. in the Grand Foyer has attracted more than
    400,000 persons since it began 2 years ago. Many of these
    people are new to the Center and some of them are attending a
    live performance for the very first time. Also on this stage,
    the Kennedy Center has presented artists and performing groups
    from throughout the Nation.
        Last year, the Kennedy Center brought the Millennium Stage
    to Capital Hill during the summer months for free concerts on
    the Capital grounds every Tuesday and Thursday at noon. More
    than 4,000 visitors to the Nation's Capital enjoyed these
    concerts, provided for with private funds. The Kennedy Center
    continues its tradition of offering free public events,
    including its Open House and holiday celebration, together
    which host over 60,000 visitors each year.
        Since September, 1971, the Kennedy Center has conducted a
    reduced price ticket program for students, disabled persons,
    senior citizens, enlisted military personnel, and others on
    limited incomes. More than 50,000 individuals each year see
    performances at half price through this program.
        The Center has expanded its reduced price program to offer
    half price day-of-performance tickets to all patrons through
    Ticket Place, a facility the Center established at the Old Post
    Office on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Center also regularly
    schedules pay-what-you-can days, allowing the public to pay
    whatever they can afford for regular performances.
        More than 4.5 million visitors pass through the doors to
    the Kennedy Center each year. Transportation for these visitors
    is facilitated by Show Shuttle, the shuttle bus service funded
    by the Center board through trust funds. More than 700,000
    riders now use this service each year. Roughly half of those
    visitors come to the Center solely to visit the presidential
    memorial.
        To compliment the work of the 650 Kennedy Center volunteers
    who perform or arrange visitor services, plans are currently
    underway for the interpretive program to include informative
    kiosks, displays, printed materials, and a top-notch,
    continuously running wide screen format film telling the story
    of the performing arts in America.
        As we all know, the Internet is an incredible resource
    through which outreach can be increased by leaps and bounds.
    Through the World Wide Web, the Kennedy Center provides
    information for patrons and visitors on the Center's artistic
    and educational programs and its status as a living
    presidential memorial.
        Also, through ArtsEdge, the interactive communication
    network designed to provide practical, easy to access
    information for teachers on arts education, can be put to use
    in the classroom and at home. Perhaps one of the most exciting
    ways the Center is reaching out to people across the country,
    and indeed the world, is by offering live performances on the
    Internet. Beginning April 1, the Kennedy Center will make
    history by harnessing the power of the Internet with live
    broadcasts daily at 6 p.m. Washington time from the Millennium
    Stage, making the performing arts accessible to people
    worldwide.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a detailed report of
    the many artistic and educational programs and activities of
    the center which reach all 50 States.
        Senator Gorton. It will be accepted.
        Mr. Wilker. Thank you. Now, let me focus on the Center's
    budget and our request for appropriated funds for the fiscal
    year 2000.
        Since the fiscal year 1995, the board has received direct
    appropriations for the operation, maintenance, and repair of
    the facility. The board's statute restricts the use of
    appropriated funds to the basic operational expenses and
    capital repair of the Kennedy Center, which is a Federal
    building.
        The Center is an example of a successful public/private
    partnership at work. The government funds the care and repair
    of the monument building, which is a Federal asset, and the
    trustees raise the funds required for artistic and educational
    programming.
        Of the total annual operating income of $120 million,
    approximately $86 million is derived from ticket sales and
    other earned income and through grants and contributions.
        Federal funds appropriated annually to the Kennedy Center
    comprise two separate accounts: operations and maintenance and
    capital repair. These funds cover basic operational expenses of
    the Federal building, including utilities, housekeeping, minor
    repair and maintenance, security, and interpretive services.
        A portion of these funds is allocated to reducing our
    backlog of many years worth of minor repair work items,
    estimated currently at $9.5 million. Appropriated funds are
    also expended for capital repair and replacement of the
    Center's antiquated building systems, as well as to bring our
    1960's designed facility up to current accessibility and life
    safety codes while maintaining functionality.
        For fiscal year 2000, the Center's request for funding for
    operations and maintenance totals $14 million, a $1 million
    increase over last year's request. This increase is requested
    to address the backlog of minor repair work items while
    maintaining building operations and maintenance at current
    levels.
        The request for the capital repair account is $20 million,
    level with last year's appropriation. This amount will allow
    the Center to move forward with phase two of our comprehensive
    building plan, which includes modifications to the center block
    of the facility to bring it into compliance with ADA codes and
    life safety codes.
        Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy Center board has overseen a
    number of successful capital repair projects, from replacement
    of the main roof and roof terrace to the installation of energy
    efficient heating and cooling systems which replaced the
    obsolete system which was original to the building.
        In October 1997, the board was pleased to reopen the
    renovated Concert Hall, which offers patrons with disabilities
    a totally accessible hall with wheelchair accommodations in all
    sections of the hall. Egress for all patrons has been improved
    and appropriate fire safety systems are now in place.
        This project was on time and on budget, and in fact was $3
    million less than the original government estimate for the
    project.
        For those members of the subcommittee not so familiar with
    the Kennedy Center facility, let me provide a brief description
    just to give you a feel for the size of the Center. The Center
    is open 18 hours a day, 365 days a year. It consists of 1.5
    million square feet of usable space on 17 acres of land.
        It contains six main theaters and two stages for
    performances in the Grand Foyer, three public restaurant
    facilities, nine special event rooms, five public galleries, 23
    elevators and sets of escalators, 2,000 doors, 108 crystal
    chandeliers, 200 valuable paintings, sculptures, tapestries,
    and textiles.
        Mr. Chairman, the board takes most seriously responsibility
    to be good stewards of the Federal assets and the Federal
    operating funds.

                               prepared statement

        On behalf of Jim Johnson, the chairman of the board, and
    all the members of the board, I thank you for the opportunity
    to bring this report of the Center's operations to the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior. I am pleased to answer
    any questions the members of the subcommittee may have. Thank
    you.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        [The statement of follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Lawrence J. Wilker
                                  introduction
        On behalf of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, I am pleased to
    submit to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior the fiscal
    year 2000 budget for appropriated funds for the John F. Kennedy Center
    for the Performing Arts, the nation's center for the performing arts
    and a living presidential memorial. The Center's fiscal year 2000
    budget justification includes $14.0 million for facility operations and
    maintenance, an increase of $1 million over the fiscal year 1999
    request, and includes $20.0 million for capital repair, level with the
    fiscal year 1999 request. Appearing for the first time before this
    subcommittee, I appreciate having this opportunity to provide an
    overview of operations of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
    Arts, an independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian
    Institution.
        A national monument, the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to
    President John F. Kennedy with a mandate to provide leadership in
    America's performing arts and in performing arts education. The Board
    fulfills this mandate with a commitment to providing opportunities for
    all Americans to participate in the excellence and the inspiration
    inherent in the performing arts.
        The Center commissions, produces, and presents diverse performances
    of the highest artistic standards, and then does something that very
    few other performing arts centers are able to do--the Center makes
    these outstanding performances available to the broadest possible
    audience through: national touring programs, free and low-cost
    performances and education activities, and through the World Wide Web.
    Beginning April 1, the Kennedy Center will make history by harnessing
    the power of the Internet with live broadcasts daily at 6:00 PM EST
    from the Millennium Stage, making the performing arts accessible to
    people worldwide.
        Although the monument building is located in Washington, the Center
    is a vital presence in communities throughout the United States through
    its tours of performing companies, grant programs, and educational
    programs, and through its electronic ``stages,'' radio, television and
    the World Wide Web.
                                    history
        The Kennedy Center originated with the administration of President
    Dwight D. Eisenhower who envisioned a national center for the
    performing arts in the nation's capital. In 1958, President Eisenhower
    signed into law the bipartisan legislation known as the National
    Cultural Center Act (Public Law 85-874), which established the Center
    as an independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian. Following
    the death of President John F. Kennedy in 1964, Congress named the
    National Cultural Center after the late president. The Center was
    established as a living memorial with a mandate to the Board to present
    performing arts programming and to be a leader in the arts in
    education.
        The original act of 1958 charged the Board of Trustees with
    responsibility for constructing and administering the nation's center
    for the performing arts. The Kennedy Center was constructed between
    1964 and 1971 with a combination of private contributions of $34.5
    million, Federal matching funds of $23.0 million, and $20.4 million in
    long-term revenue bonds held by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Dozens
    of foreign countries gave gifts of building materials, chandeliers,
    artwork and artifacts.
        The facility opened to an eager public in September, 1971, with
    three operating theaters. The public visited the monument in numbers
    that exceeded all expectations. In 1972, Congress authorized the
    National Park Service to provide maintenance, security, and other
    services necessary to maintain the public building. Friends of the
    Kennedy Center volunteers provided visitor and interpretive services,
    as they do to this day.
        Between fiscal year 1972 and fiscal year 1995, the National Park
    Service received direct annual appropriations for the operations and
    maintenance and repair of the presidential monument.
        By 1993, the building showed significant signs of deterioration.
    The Board of Trustees, with the support of the Department of Interior,
    sought a more efficient approach to management of the building, with
    one entity responsible for both tending to the physical plant and for
    the activities of the living memorial. In 1994, with bipartisan support
    from Congress and the administration, legislation was enacted (P. L.
    103-279), which authorized the transfer to the Board of all
    appropriated fund responsibilities, as well as 55 full-time equivalent
    National Park Service employees, and all unexpended balances of funds
    previously appropriated to the National Park Service. The transfer of
    authority was effective October 1, 1994.
        Since the transfer, the Board has prepared, with regular updates, a
    Comprehensive Building Plan, which establishes a program to bring the
    monument up to current life safety and accessibility standards by the
    year 2009.
        We have already accomplished much, with completion of parking
    garage renovations, the replacement of the roof and the roof terrace
    and antiquated HVAC systems, and renovation of the Concert Hall. The
    next major focus of our building rehabilitation program is the Center
    Block of the building, including the Opera House. This 3-year program
    is beginning this fiscal year.
                               board of trustees
        The Center's originating statute (20 U.S.C. 76h) established a
    Board of Trustees to maintain and administer the Center. Since 1996,
    the Chairman of the Board has been James A. Johnson. I, as president,
    direct the day-to-day operations of the Center. Kenneth Duberstein and
    Alma Powell are Vice Chairmen of the Board.
        The Kennedy Center Board of Trustees consists of 49 members: Thirty
    citizen members serving 6-year terms are appointed by the President of
    the United States; nine ex-officio members represent local and Federal
    Government agencies; and ten members represent the legislative branch,
    five each from the Senate and House of Representatives. A list of
    current Board members is submitted with this statement.
        As required by the Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 761), the Board
    reports annually to the U.S. Congress on both its appropriated fund and
    trust fund operations. In addition, the Board reports annually to the
    Secretary of Education on its national performing arts in education
    activities.
                          the kennedy center building
        The monument from which the Board operates and serves the visiting
    public and the scope of the Board's operations are immense. The
    building is open to the public 365 days each year, from 10:00 a.m.
    until midnight. Of the 4.5 million visitors annually, as many as
    700,000 take advantage of the Kennedy Center's free shuttle bus service
    to and from METRO.
        The building consists of 1.5 million square feet of usable floor
    space and is constructed on 17 acres of land. It contains six operating
    theaters and two stages for free performances in the Grand Foyer, three
    public restaurant facilities, nine special event rooms, five public
    galleries, halls and foyers, 11 rehearsal rooms for rehearsals and
    education programs. The Center's Facility Management staff maintains
    complex heating and cooling systems, 23 elevators and six sets of
    escalators, 133 restrooms, more than 2,000 doors, 13 mechanical rooms,
    108 crystal chandeliers, and 200 valuable paintings, sculptures,
    tapestries and textiles. Support systems in the building often operate
    at capacity in excess of 18 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a
    year.
                               sources of income
        Since the start of fiscal year 1995, the Board has been responsible
    for all appropriated and non-appropriated fund activities at the
    Center. The annual operating budget of the Center now is more than $100
    million.
        Performing arts programming and administration represent 80 percent
    of the Center's total operating budget. Ticket sales (50 percent);
    other earned income (20 percent); and grants and contributions (30
    percent) support programming activities of the Board. The Board of
    Trustees raises $30 million in grants and contributions per year,
    roughly the current annual level of direct appropriations, $32 million
    dollars.
        The Center's success is based on a public/private partnership: the
    government provides funding for the care of the monument building--a
    Federal asset, and the Trustees raise all the funding required for the
    artistic and educational programming of the living memorial. Federal
    appropriated funds make up 20 percent of the Center's total operating
    budget. The annual appropriation of approximately $32 million is made
    to the Board of Trustees for the operation, maintenance, and capital
    repair of the building. Appropriated funds are used only for basic
    operational expenses such as utilities, housekeeping, security, minor
    repair and maintenance, and capital repair. I would note for the
    Committee that the Center's authorizing statute specifically prohibits
    the use of appropriated funds for direct expenses incurred in the
    production of performing arts attractions.
                           use of appropriated funds
        Federal funds appropriated annually to the Kennedy Center comprise
    two separate accounts: (1) operations and maintenance, and (2) capital
    repair. The appropriation for the operations and maintenance account
    for fiscal year 1999 was $12,187,000. The capital repair appropriation
    was $20 million, the authorized limit established last year in Public
    Law 105-226 to allow the Board to continue with the Comprehensive
    Building Plan to bring the facility into compliance with fire and life
    safety codes as well as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
    requirements while maintaining the functionality of the structure.
        The Federal appropriations received in the current fiscal year
    cover basic operational expenses of the Federal building, including
    utilities, housekeeping, minor repair and maintenance, security, and
    interpretive services. A portion of these annual operating funds are
    allocated to reducing a significant minor repair backlog that
    accumulated over many years and the cost of which is estimated at $9.5
    million. Appropriated funds are also expended for capital repair and
    replacement of the Center's antiquated building systems. Under our
    capital repair program, we are bringing the building, designed in the
    mid- 1960's, up to current accessibility and fire and life safety codes
    while maintaining the functionality of the facility.
        Since assuming control of building operations, maintenance, and
    capital repairs, the Board has implemented several measures to
    streamline operations and increase efficiencies aspects of appropriated
    fund management. The Board retains the services of the General Services
    Administration for contract and financial management services, engages
    the services of other agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and
    the National Park Service to assist in performing various procurement
    functions, and employs an in-house contracting officer to supervise and
    facilitate contracting for goods and services. Policies such as these
    have proven successful in keeping the Center's overhead as low as
    possible.
        During the last fiscal year, the Center completed installation of
    an integrated facility management information system that allows us to
    enhance our performance on a work order by work order basis, and
    promote improved preventative maintenance. The Board has improved
    security operations at the Center by increasing the number of officers
    and upgrading the quality of the guard force.
        The Board's management of the capital repair account has yielded
    the successful completion of many capital repair projects. Since fiscal
    year 1997, the Board has facilitated installation of a new heating and
    cooling system. When it opened in 1971, the Kennedy Center was the
    world's largest all-electric facility and until 1997, was still using
    its original chillers that had become inefficient to the point of
    obsolescence. Other successful projects include the complete
    replacement of the main roof and roof terrace materials--which has
    resulted in a greatly improved roof drainage system, and accessibility
    and fire safety rehabilitation work in the Concert Hall. Both of these
    projects were on time and on budget. The newly renovated Concert Hall
    offers patrons with disabilities a totally accessible hall with
    wheelchair accommodations in all sections of the hall. Egress for all
    patrons had been improved, and appropriate fire safety systems are in
    place.
              fiscal year 2000 operations and maintenance program
        The Center's request for fiscal year 2000 funding for the
    operations and maintenance account totals $14.0 million. This is an
    increase of $1.0 million over the fiscal year 1999 request and is
    consistent with the Kennedy Center's long-range operational plans to
    adequately maintain the structure to avoid increased deferred
    maintained such as that which accumulated from 1971 through 1994. This
    increase in funds is required to address a portion of the backlog of
    minor repair work items facing the Center while maintaining building
    operations and maintenance at current levels. In addition to minor
    repair needs, the operations and maintenance account also covers
    utilities and basic operations and provides for a proactive routing
    maintenance program which over time will alleviate the compounding
    backlog of minor building repairs. A decrease in the budgeted request
    will adversely affect the Center's program to reduce the accumulated
    minor repair backlog, because virtually all other operation and
    maintenance expenses such as electricity and water and sewer, security
    and life safety, building personnel costs are not discretionary. A
    decrease in minor repair expenditures will increase future operating
    and capital repair costs. The operations and maintenance account funds
    personnel compensation and benefits for 49 full-time equivalent (FTE)
    personnel. This FTE level is unchanged from the fiscal year 1999 level.
    The operations and maintenance request reflects a 3.1 percent Federal
    pay-raise adjustment.
                    fiscal year 2000 capital repair program
        The Center's request for fiscal year 2000 funding for the capital
    repair program is $20.0 million, level with the fiscal year 1999
    request. This amount will allow the Center to continue with Phase 2 of
    its Comprehensive Building Plan which includes modifications to the
    Center Block of the building to bring the facility into compliance with
    current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and fire and
    life safety codes.
        The capital repair account funds personnel compensation and
    benefits for six full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel. This FTE level
    is also unchanged from the current fiscal year. The capital repair
    request reflects a 3.1 percent Federal pay-raise adjustment
               general accounting office (gao) audit requirement
        Under Public Law 103-279, the 1994 Amendments to the Kennedy Center
    Act, the GAO was required to audit the appropriated fund accounts of
    the Kennedy Center every three years. GAO has concluded its first audit
    since the Kennedy Center assumed responsibility for operations and
    maintenance and capital repair of the building. After reviewing the
    accounts and procedures, GAO reported no problems. Instead, GAO
    recommended that their 3-year audit requirement be terminated because
    it duplicates the annual audit by the Kennedy Center's certified public
    accountant, whose report is submitted to the Congress.
                      kennedy center artistic programming
        Performance and education are our primary goals at the Center. More
    than 3,500 performances are presented annually. Since it opened in
    1971, the Kennedy Center has:
      --produced and presented works by many of America's most talented
            playwrights;
      --participated in strengthening musical theater through producing and
            touring revivals of great American musicals and developing new
            works;
      --diversified its programming through partnerships with local and
            national performing arts and educational institutions;
      --entered a new and exciting phase in orchestral music with Leonard
            Slatkin as the artistic director of the National Symphony
            Orchestra, and in jazz under the direction of Dr. Billy Taylor;
            and
      --commissioned new works by American playwrights, composers, and
            choreographers.
        The Kennedy Center has a special responsibility to support,
    present, and produce American artists and places special emphasis on
    American-bred forms like jazz, musical theater, modern dance, and on
    the range of cultural influences that are American. The Kennedy
    Center's commitment to developing new works and nurturing innovative
    artists is also reflected in its theatrical productions and
    commissions, which range from blockbuster revivals of classic American
    musicals to new works for youth and family audiences. (The Center's co-
    production of Titanic received the 1997 Tony Award for Best Musical.)
    The Kennedy Center Fund for New American Plays, now in its 13th year,
    has helped develop more than 50 works, including three Pulitzer Prize
    winners, and more recently, a new work by former U.S. Poet Laureate
    Rita Dove, The Darker Face of the Earth, which was produced at the
    Kennedy Center last season.
        The Kennedy Center continues to be a national leader in the
    creation and preservation of American dance. This season marks the
    inauguration of a major 3-year commissioning initiative celebrating two
    of our great American indigenous art forms, modern dance and jazz.
    Already we have presented new works by David Parsons, Pilobolus and
    Paul Taylor. Next month, Kennedy Center audiences will see a
    commissioned world premiere by Bill T. Jones featuring a composition by
    jazz great Fred Hirsch.
        The Kennedy Center's artistic affiliate, the National Symphony
    Orchestra, next month will embark on its seventh American Residency
    program. The NSO will travel to Mississippi for an extended residency
    featuring more than 140 public and in-school performances, master
    classes for young musicians, workshops for teachers, and cultural
    exchanges. In past years, the NSO has conducted residencies in Alabama,
    Alaska, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, bringing the
    orchestra to states not served by major symphony orchestras. During
    last year's residency in Alabama, tens of thousands of people, from
    pre-schoolers to senior citizens, participated in about 150
    performances and educational events. From each of the residency states,
    a local composer is commissioned to create a work for the NSO, a
    teacher is chosen for the intensive Kennedy Center/NSO Teaching
    Fellowship at the Center, and several young music students are chosen
    to travel to the Center for the NSO's month-long Summer Music
    Institute.
                      kennedy center education programming
        For more than two decades, the Kennedy Center has shown through its
    local and nationwide arts education programs that the inclusion of the
    performing arts in a broad-based curriculum dramatically improves the
    quality of a child's educational experience. The Center has played a
    leadership role in making the arts an integral part of the curriculum
    of America's schools, as mandated in the Kennedy Center Act, through
    its professional development programs for teachers; its performances
    for young people and families; its programs that help arts centers and
    their local school districts work together; its professional training
    programs for young musicians, actors, and dancers; its residency
    programs; and much more. All told, the Kennedy Center's programs in
    arts education reach more than 4.5 million people across the United
    States each year.
        The Kennedy Center is working with partners across the nation to
    improve the quality of education through the inclusion of the arts. The
    arts teach discipline, inspire creativity, and help young people to set
    and reach goals. The arts help good teachers teach better and makes
    participating schools' exciting, challenging places for children--
    places where they are encouraged to explore, to think creatively, and
    to reach their full potential.
        The leadership of the Kennedy Center in education is in evidence in
    communities across the country. Just a few programs are:
    Kennedy Center Performing Arts Centers and Schools Program
        67 participating teams representing 37 States (The Center last
    month hosted its eighth annual meeting in Washington, D. C. Team
    members attended workshops and activities to further strengthen their
    community partnerships).
                Teacher Development Workshops
        Since 1994, the Performing Arts Centers and Schools teams in
    conjunction with the Kennedy Center have presented 202 professional
    development opportunities for teachers in more than 32 States.
    Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration On Tour
        The Kennedy Center commissioned and produced three new productions:
    Brothers of the Knight, freely adapted from Twelve Dancing Princesses,
    written, directed, and choreographed by Debbie Allen, and composed by
    James Ingram; Louisa May Alcott's classic Little Women, adapted by
    playwright Paulette Lauder and directed by Albert Takazauckas; and The
    Nightingale, which combined dance, music, martial arts and narration,
    conceived and choreographed by Dana Tai Soon Burgess, written and
    directed by Mary Hall Surface and composed by David Maddox.
        The Kennedy Center's production of Judy Blume's Tales of a Fourth
    Grade Nothing toured nationally last year with 147 performances in 45
    venues in 21 States.
    Kennedy Center Alliance for Arts Education Network
        46 independent State Alliance organizations are operating in
    partnership with the Kennedy Center for the inclusion of the arts in
    every child's education.
    Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival
        Participation by more than 400,000 college students representing
    more than 600 colleges and universities throughout the United States.
    National Symphony Orchestra
        During its 1998 American Residency in Alabama, the NSO participated
    in 150 events in 10 days. This successful residency follows those in
    Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Montana and Wyoming. Next month the
    NSO will travel to Mississippi for its 1999 Residency.
                Summer Music Institute
        Since 1993, 221 high school and college students from more than 22
    States have participated in this program that offers young musicians
    master classes, ensemble training and performance opportunities in
    Washington, DC.
        One of the most exciting things about the Center's education
    activities is that they transcend both the Center itself and the
    classroom. Under a cooperative agreement with the National Endowment
    for the Arts and the U.S. Department of Education, the Kennedy Center
    for several years has been home to ARTsEDGE, an interactive
    communications network designed to provide practical, useful and
    easily-accessible information important to teachers, artists, parents,
    and anyone concerned with the inclusion of the arts in the education of
    young people.
        More than 10,000 visits per day are received on ARTsEDGE. ARTsEDGE
    can be accessed through the Kennedy Center's Home Page on the World
    Wide Web. The Center's Home Page provides complete information for
    patrons and visitors on the Center's artistic and education programming
    and its status as a living presidential memorial. Patrons can now
    purchase tickets directly through the Center's Home Page at: http://
    kennedy-center.org.
        In addition, a series of live interactive educational programs
    featuring Kennedy Center artists are broadcast through the Prince
    William County Public Schools Media Network over educational TV cable
    channels to school districts locally and across the country.
                          performing arts for everyone
        More than four and a half million visitors pass through the doors
    to the Kennedy Center each year. Transportation for these visitors is
    facilitated by ShowShuttle, the METRO shuttle service funded by the
    Kennedy Center Board through trust funds. More than 720,000 riders now
    use this service. Roughly half of those visitors come to the Center
    solely to visit the presidential memorial. Twenty-five years after the
    Center first opened its doors to the public as the sole national
    monument to the late president, the Board continuously looks for new
    ways to provide a more engaging and exciting interpretive experience
    for visitors.
        To compliment the work of the 650 Friends of the Kennedy Center
    volunteers who perform a range of visitor services, plans are currently
    underway for the interpretive program to include informative kiosks,
    displays, and printed materials, and a top-notch, continuously running,
    wide-screen format film telling the story of the performing arts in
    America.
        As the national center for the performing arts, the Kennedy Center
    is committed to bringing quality and diversity to its stages and the
    Board of Trustees places the highest of priorities on making the arts
    accessible to all Americans. Just two weeks ago, on March 1, 1999, the
    Center celebrated the second anniversary of the Millennium Stage--where
    free daily performances take place in the Grand Foyer. Two years ago,
    the Center launched ``Performing Arts for Everyone,'' a program
    designed to expand and increase access to the performing arts for local
    area residents and visitors to the nation's capital through free daily
    performances at the Center. Every evening, seven days a week, 52 weeks
    a year, there is a free performance on the Millennium Stage and tickets
    are never required. With this new program, the Center has attracted
    more than 400,000 persons in the last two years, many of them new to
    the Kennedy Center, and some of them attending a live performance for
    the very first time. Last year, the Kennedy Center brought the
    Millennium Stage to Capitol Hill during the summer months for free
    concerts on the Capitol grounds every Tuesday and Thursday at noon.
    More than 4,000 visitors to the nation's capitol enjoyed the concerts
    provided for with private funds.
        The Center also presented artists and performing groups from 49
    States through the State Days series of free performances on the
    Millennium Stage.
        The Kennedy Center continues its tradition of offering free public
    events by sponsoring its annual month-long Holiday Celebration that
    showcases more than 30 local performance groups and attracts more than
    20,000 patrons. The annual Kennedy Center Open House will kick off the
    millennium season in September with a day of free performances on
    stages throughout the building. The Center's larger-than-ever free Open
    House celebration is attended annually by more than 30,000 people.
        Since September, 1971, the Kennedy Center has conducted a reduced-
    price ticket program for students, disabled persons, senior citizens
    over age 65, enlisted military personnel, and others on limited
    incomes. More than 50,000 individuals per year see performances at half
    price through this program. The Center has expanded its reduced-price
    program to offer half-price, day-of-performance tickets to all patrons
    through TICKETplace, a facility at the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania
    Avenue. The Center also regularly schedules ``pay what you can'' days
    allowing the public to pay whatever they can afford for regular
    performances.
        With more than 3,500 performances in Washington alone, and hundreds
    of touring performances, workshops, and other activities across the
    country, the Center's doors are open to everyone.
                                   conclusion
        Recognizing that the challenges are great, the Kennedy Center is
    enthusiastic about its mission. The Trustees, employees, educators, and
    artists associated with the Kennedy Center are committed to the
    congressional mandate established for this living memorial.
        We are appreciative of the support in Congress for our programs and
    for the unique public/private partnership that is the basis for the
    Center's financial success. I am grateful for this opportunity to
    submit a statement to the subcommittee and would be pleased to respond
    to any questions you might have.
                                     ______

              1998 American College Theater Festival Participants
                               university/college
    University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
    Troy State University, Troy, AL
    University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
    Auburn University at Montgomery, Montgomery, AL
    University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
    University of Montevallo, Montevallo, AL
    Auburn University, Auburn, AL
    Huntingdon College, Montgomery, AL
    Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL
    University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK
    Phoenix College, Phoenix, AZ
    Glendale Community College, Glendale, AZ
    Scottsdale Community College, Scottsdale, AZ
    Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ
    Eastern Arizona State University, Thatcher, AZ
    University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    Lyon College, Batesville, AR
    Philander Smith College, Little Rock, AR
    University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR
    University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR
    University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR
    Arkansas State University, Beebe, Beebe, AR
    Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR
    University of the Ozarks, Clarksville, AR
    Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR
    Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR
    Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR
    El Camino College, Torrance, CA
    Fullerton College, Fullerton, CA
    American River College, Sacramento, CA
    City College of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
    Cypress College, Cypress, CA
    College of Notre Dame, Belmont, CA
    California State University, Fresno, Fresno, CA
    Fresno City College, Fresno, CA
    California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA
    California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA
    California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
    Chapman University, Orange, CA
    Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, CA
    University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
    California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks, CA
    California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA
    California State University, Chico, Chico, CA
    California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA
    Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA
    California State University, Hayward, Hayward, CA
    Cerritos College, Norwalk, CA
    Chabot College, Hayward, CA
    Citrus College, Glendora, CA
    Concordia University, Irvine, CA
    California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA
    University of Redlands, Redlands, CA
    Ventura College, Ventura, CA
    Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA
    Santa Ana College, Santa Ana, CA
    Los Angeles Valley College, Van Nuys, CA
    Grossmont College, El Cajon, CA
    Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA
    Compton Community College, Compton, CA

        Senator Gorton. Before we go to Mr. Powell, we have the
    chairman of the Appropriations Committee here. Since my ability
    to fund each and every one of you will depend on the allocation
    that Senator Stevens provides for me, we will defer to him for
    any remarks that he would like to make.
        Senator Stevens. I'm sorry to be late. I have several
    subcommittees I am going to stop in to visit this morning.
        Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see so many friends here,
    and sad to hear about your departure, Lee. We'll have to talk
    about that some other time. But, indeed, it is nice to see you
    here in your new capacity representing the Wilson Center.
        I have no questions at the moment.
        Thank you very much.

                    Summary statement of Earl A. Powell, III

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Powell.
        Mr. Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens. It is
    my pleasure to be here with you this morning, and I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to meet with the subcommittee
    about the National Gallery of Art. We are pleased to present
    our fiscal year 2000 budget for the Senate's consideration.
        We have also submitted a longer statement for the record,
    but I will go through an overview of that here and will be
    available, of course, for questions afterwards.
        The National Gallery of Art is dedicated to serving the
    country by preserving, collecting, exhibiting, and encouraging
    the understanding of works of art at an exemplary level. Over
    the years, the Gallery has consistently hired and retained the
    best available curatorial, educational, and management staffs.
    Day-to-day operations support our mission through the care,
    maintenance, and security of the works of art and the
    facilities.
        The National Gallery is unique in the Nation in many ways.
    It is one of the great examples of a public/private
    partnership. It is not only an art museum of the first rank but
    an institution of higher learning created and sustained by
    government and private citizens.
        The Gallery's founder, Andrew W. Mellon, set a standard for
    artistic excellence which the Gallery has consistently
    maintained. Through a joint resolution adopted in 1937, the
    Congress accepted Mr. Mellon's gift to the people of the United
    States and pledged to provide funds for the upkeep,
    administration, and operations of the Gallery, including the
    protection and care of works of art, so that the National
    Gallery would be open to the general public free of charge.
        All works of art in the National Gallery collection have
    been acquired by donation or through purchases with private
    funds. A collection of international stature has been created
    by the generosity of some 2,000 donors who have presented the
    Nation with approximately 100,000 works of art.
        This spirit of philanthropy, coupled with an understanding
    and supportive government, has created a remarkable institution
    in the National Gallery of Art.
        As a further example of this partnership, in the Gallery's
    immediate future is the opening in late May of this year of the
    National Gallery of Art Sculpture Garden which is in
    construction on the Mall. Many of you may have watched its
    emergence over the last several years in the six-acre block
    adjacent to the West Building on Constitution Avenue.
        Designed to offer year-round enjoyment to the public in one
    of the most preeminent locations on the National Mall, the
    Sculpture Garden features flexible spaces to display outdoor
    sculpture in the Gallery's collection. In the winter, the
    fountain will return to an ice skating rink, long a favorite to
    Washington area residents and tourists.
        The Sculpture Garden is made possible by a 1991 agreement
    signed by the National Park Service and the Gallery and
    approved by the National Capital Planning Commission that
    transferred jurisdiction of the site from the Park Service to
    the Gallery. Construction of the National Gallery Sculpture
    Garden has been made possible by a gift from the Morris and
    Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation.

                            fiscal year 2000 Request

        The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request, in line with
    the Gallery's strategic plan, focuses on two basic areas:
    continued funding at the present no-growth level of our day-to-
    day operations and special exhibitions program, plus essential
    monies for the repair, restoration, and renovation of the
    Gallery's two architecturally important buildings.
        The National Gallery's Federal funds request to Congress
    for fiscal year 2000 is $67,749,000, a net increase of
    $3,500,000 compared to the 1999 budget. This includes
    $3,391,000 for mandatory/uncontrollable costs, and $109,000 for
    five FTE's for security of the new Sculpture Garden.
        A major priority for the Gallery is and will continue to be
    the upkeep of the West and East Buildings, important national
    monuments as significant as the great works of art which they
    house. The West Building will be 59 years old in 2000. The East
    Building will be 22 years old.
        It is not surprising, therefore, that the Gallery faces a
    steady ongoing program of repairs and renovations to keep these
    buildings functioning efficiently, securely, and safely.
        Recognizing the need for a planned, comprehensive program
    of building and system repairs and maintenance, a master
    facilities plan was developed for the Gallery in order to
    determine when replacement of a building system or component is
    appropriate for inclusion in future budget requests. $6.3
    million of our total request is for the repair, restoration,
    and renovation account.
        This funding will allow us to work on two groups of master
    facilities plan projects, structural exterior repairs and
    restoration and interior mechanical/electrical equipment
    replacements, plus continued work on the fire protection system
    which is presently underway, as well as the ongoing renovation
    program.
        I am pleased to report that we are nearing completion of
    the West Building's skylight and building automation projects
    and much of the fire protection project. I want to take this
    opportunity to thank the chairman, the subcommittee, and the
    U.S. Senate for the support so crucial to these projects.
        When completed, the skylight project will allow the Gallery
    to reopen all of the permanent galleries in the West Building,
    and it will be the first time in many, many years we will have
    been able to show the entire range of the Gallery's collections
    in that building.
        The fiscal year 2000 special exhibition schedule is an
    ambitious and international one. It will include exhibitions
    such as Art Nouveau 1890-1914, a thematic exploration of the
    first expansive, worldwide modern art movement; The Triumph of
    the Baroque: Architecture in Europe, an architectural models
    show that will present a panorama of architecture in Europe at
    this exciting time, which builds on the very successful
    Renaissance Models exhibition we had several years ago; and
    Monet and the Impressionists at Argenteuil, a selection of more
    than 50 paintings, some of the most lyrical and dazzling
    pictures of the day by the major impressionists, including
    Monet, Manet, and Renoir. The Gallery will also honor Paul
    Mellon with an exhibition focusing on Degas and other works
    drawn from his many gifts to the Nation over many years.
        In 1998, we welcomed over 5.3 million visitors from all 50
    States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories and some
    80 foreign countries. The crucial, ongoing support of Federal
    funding makes it possible for the American people and visitors
    from around the world to visit the Gallery 7 days a week, 363
    days a year, free of charge.
        Access to the Gallery's collection and educational programs
    has been increased by the dramatic development of our web site,
    launched just 2 years ago. In calendar year 1998, the Gallery
    Web site had 23,000 to 27,000 visitors per day, bringing our
    resources to national and international audiences. It has won
    innumerable awards for its content as well as its design.
        On the eve of the new millennium, the Gallery looks forward
    to continuing on a path set in place over a half century ago,
    dedicated to the vision and high standards of excellence
    established by Andrew W. Mellon and the 1937 joint resolution
    of Congress.

                               prepared statement

        Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, the Gallery is very
    appreciative and grateful for your continuing support. I will
    be happy to answer questions following the other testimony.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Earl A. Powell, III
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
    be here with you this morning. Thank you for the opportunity to meet
    with the subcommittee about the National Gallery of Art. We are pleased
    to present our fiscal year 2000 budget for the Senate's consideration.
        The National Gallery of Art is dedicated to serving the country by
    preserving, collecting, exhibiting, and encouraging the understanding
    of works of art at an exemplary level. Over the years the Gallery has
    consistently hired and retained the best available curatorial,
    educational, and management staffs. Day-to-day operations support our
    mission through the care, maintenance, and security of the works of art
    and the facilities.
        The National Gallery is unique in the nation. It is not only an art
    museum of the first rank but an institution of higher learning created
    and sustained by government and private citizens. The National
    Gallery's founder, Andrew W. Mellon, set a standard for artistic
    excellence which the Gallery has consistently maintained.
        The use of Federal funds to operate the National Gallery stems from
    the 1937 Joint Resolution of Congress, which accepted Andrew W.
    Mellon's unprecedented gift to the people of the United States. Mr.
    Mellon's gift consisted of his art collection, funds to construct a
    building (now the West Building) and an endowment fund. Mr. Mellon
    stipulated that the gift not bear his name so that other Americans
    might ``contribute works of art of the highest quality to form a great
    national collection.''
        The National Gallery is a model of public-private partnership by
    its creation. In accepting Andrew Mellon's gift the Congress, in turn,
    pledged the faith of the United States to provide funds for the upkeep,
    administration, and operations of the Gallery, including the protection
    and care of works of art subsequently acquired by the Board of Trustees
    so that the National Gallery would be open to the general public free
    of charge.
        All works of art in the National Gallery collection have been
    acquired by donation or through purchase with private funds. A
    collection of international stature has been created by the generosity
    of some 2,000 donors who have presented the nation with approximately
    100,000 works of art. This spirit of philanthropy, coupled with an
    understanding and supportive government, has created a remarkable
    institution in the National Gallery of Art.
        As a further example of this partnership, in the Gallery's
    immediate future is the opening in late May of this year of the
    National Gallery of Art Sculpture Garden. Many of you may have watched
    its emergence over the last several years in the six-acre block
    adjacent to the West Building on Constitution Avenue. Designed to offer
    year-round enjoyment to the public in one of the preeminent locations
    on the National Mall, the Sculpture Garden will feature flexible spaces
    to display outdoor sculpture in the Gallery's collection. The garden
    will also provide an elegant yet informal setting featuring new
    plantings of native American species of trees, shrubs, ground cover,
    and perennials. In the winter, the fountain will return to the ice
    skating rink, long a favorite, to Washington area residents and
    tourists. The Sculpture Garden is made possible by a 1991 agreement,
    signed by the National Park Service and the Gallery and approved by the
    National Capital Planning Commission, that transferred jurisdiction of
    the site from the Park Service to the Gallery. Construction of the
    National Gallery Sculpture Garden has been made possible by The Morris
    and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation.
        The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request, in line with the
    Gallery's Strategic Plan, focuses on two basic areas: continued funding
    at the present no-growth level of our day-to-day operations and special
    exhibitions program, plus essential monies for the repair, restoration,
    and renovation of the Gallery's two architecturally important
    buildings.
        The National Gallery's Federal funds request to Congress for fiscal
    year 2000 is $67,749,000, a net increase of $3,500,000 compared to the
    1999 budget. This includes $3,391,000 for mandatory/uncontrollable
    costs, and $109,000 for five FTEs for security of the new Sculpture
    Garden.
        A major priority for the Gallery is and will be the upkeep of the
    West and East Buildings, important national monuments as significant as
    the great works of art which they house. The West Building will be 59
    years old in 2000; the East Building will be 22 years old. It is not
    surprising, therefore, that the Gallery faces a steady, ongoing program
    of repairs and renovations to keep these buildings functioning
    efficiently, securely and safely.
        Recognizing the need for a planned, comprehensive program of
    building and system repairs, a Master Facilities Plan was developed for
    the Gallery in order to determine when replacement of a building system
    or component is appropriate for inclusion in future budget requests.
    Providing an organized framework for a comprehensive and effective
    implementation of infrastructure improvements and renovations, the
    Master Facilities Plan will phase in major repairs and systems
    replacements over the next decade. The intent is to successfully
    identify those projects that will ensure the continued high performance
    of the Gallery facilities and to minimize the impact on visitors and
    Gallery programs while proactively maintaining these national monuments
    for many generations to come.
        $6.3 million of our total request is for the Repair, Restoration
    and Renovation account. This sum will allow us to continue work on two
    groups of Master Facilities Plan projects: ``Structural/Exterior
    Repairs and Restoration,'' and ``Interior Mechanical/Electrical
    Equipment Replacements,'' plus continue work on the ``Fire Protection
    System'' as well as the ongoing renovation program. I am pleased to
    report that we are nearing completion of the West Building Skylight and
    Building Automation projects, as well as much of the Fire Protection
    project. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman,
    the Subcommittee, and the United States Senate for the support so
    crucial to these projects.
        The fiscal year 2000 special exhibition schedule is an ambitious
    and international one. The year includes exhibitions such as: Art
    Nouveau 1890-1914, a thematic exploration of the first expansive,
    worldwide ``modern art'' movement; The Triumph of the Baroque:
    Architecture in Europe 1600-1750, an architectural models show that
    will present a panorama of architecture in Europe at that exciting
    time; and Monet and the Impressionists at Argenteuil, a selection of
    more than fifty paintings by the six major Impressionists--Monet,
    Boudin, Caillebotte, Manet, Renoir, and Sisley--who were fascinated by
    this site in France and who painted many of the most lyrical, dazzling,
    and progressive pictures of the day at Argenteuil. The Gallery will
    honor Paul Mellon with an exhibition focusing on Degas and other works
    drawn from his many gifts to the American public.
        Federal operating funds have a multiplier effect specifically for
    special exhibitions. Private funding from corporate and foundation
    sponsors match Federal dollars to cover exhibition costs. Many museums
    in this country and abroad look to the Gallery to organize and to share
    major special exhibitions. Recent examples of exhibitions originating
    at the Gallery and then traveling to other venues include Van Gogh's
    Van Goghs, now at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; the Mark Rothko
    survey at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York; and the M. C.
    Escher graphics exhibition now at Norfolk, Virginia's Chrysler Museum.
    Our current major exhibition of the works of John Singer Sargent will
    be on view this summer at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
        Last year, we welcomed over 5.3 million visitors from all 50
    States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories, and from some
    80 foreign countries. The crucial, ongoing support of Federal funding
    ensures the operations of the Gallery and the protection and care of
    the works of art. This support makes it possible for the American
    people, and visitors around the world, to the visit the Gallery seven
    days a week, 363 days a year, free of charge. Access to the Gallery
    collection and educational programs has been increased by the dramatic
    development of our Web site, launched just two years ago. (http://
    www.nga.gov). In calendar year 1998, the Gallery web site had 23,000 to
    27,000 visitors per day, bringing our resources to national and
    international audiences.
        On the eve of the new millennium, the Gallery looks forward to
    continuing on the path set in place over a half century ago, dedicated
    to the vision and the high standards of excellence established by
    Andrew W. Mellon and the 1937 Joint Resolution of Congress.
        Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, the Gallery is very
    appreciative and grateful for your continuing support. I will be glad
    to answer any questions you may have about the National Gallery, its
    operations, and its programs.

                     Summary statement of I. MICHAEL HEYMAN

        Senator Gorton. Well, at least for the purposes of this
    subcommittee, Mr. Heyman, your swan song.
        Mr. Heyman. Let me start with thanking you very much for
    your kind words. I really regret leaving the Smithsonian
    immensely. It is a wonderful place. But I must say, I also look
    forward to returning to the Bay Area and to renewing my ties
    with the University of California, which is what I will be
    doing.
        My priority as Secretary has been to maintain the quality
    of the programs that we offer and to enhance the visitors'
    experience while touring our museums and utilizing our research
    facilities. Each time I come to a hearing when my colleagues
    and I are together I think how fortunate they are to be dealing
    with one or two buildings.
        I deal with 16 museums, four very large research
    facilities, and a number of others at the National Zoo, all of
    which is extraordinarily exciting, but it is somewhat difficult
    to keep my arms around all of them.

                              Affiliations program

        I have been quite dedicated, as I think many know, to
    sharing the experience that one has, for instance here in
    Washington, with people outside of Washington and to make our
    programs and collections more accessible to the nation. We have
    done that through three programs, two of which have been
    enhanced considerably; in fact, both created during the last
    four and a half years. One of those is the Affiliations Program
    in which we enter into arrangements with local museums or
    museums that are coming into being, and under the right
    conditions, if they can take care of our collections and can
    utilize them well, we are willing to make long-term loans of
    objects. It seems to me this is a win-win game in many ways.
        It is obviously good for the institutions with which we
    work, but it is really very good for the Smithsonian to be able
    to give access to collections which otherwise would probably
    not be seen but rather remain in storage.
        We are dealing now with 23 active affiliations. This
    program began in 1996, or was created then. We have five that
    have been fully implemented and one could watch last week as a
    huge number of huge objects from the collections displayed in
    the Arts and Industries Building started to go up to Bethlehem,
    PA where they will be housed in a new National Museum of
    American Industrial History, a 501(c)3 that has been created.
    It is part of the revival of the city of Bethlehem in
    Pennsylvania.
        A huge building has been dedicated, and at the expense of
    that museum and its supporters we are curating a very large
    show on the history of the American industrial revolution,
    something we never could do in the space that we have here. But
    I think it is going to be a fine show. The curators in the
    American History Museum who are involved in this are very
    excited with the possibility of being able to do that.
        A lot of other affiliation agreements are being discussed.
    I think 15 or 20 years from now we are going to look back and
    think this program was one of the most important that has been
    created in a long time by the Smithsonian in terms of bringing
    our articles, our objects, our artifacts elsewhere.

                               outreach Programs

        We have been doing some very interesting work, as Senator
    Stevens knows, in Alaska. We have very deep collections of
    Alaskan materials. He discovered part of them about 15 years
    ago with one of our fine curators at the National Museum of
    Natural History.
        A lot of those now are on tour and on loan to new museums,
    small museums, many in native villages in Alaska. That is
    turning out to be really a very good program, and an outreach
    program which is very important to us.

              Smithsonian institution traveling exhibition service

        Of course, the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition
    Service goes on, and enlarges, because it has begun to be able
    to garner some corporate and foundation support for its
    programs. In the packet that I have given to you, you have a
    good description of what the SITES projects are and where those
    tours have been. One of the programs that SITES runs is called
    Museum on Main Street, and it is designed for small, rural
    communities.
        It has 100 participating communities at the moment. If I
    had at my hand, Senator Gorton, the five communities in
    Washington where we are at the moment, I would recite those.
    But that is just an example of the breadth of this program.
        We do other kinds of touring, obviously, as you will find
    out later, if not before, when the National Museum of American
    Art and the National Portrait Gallery are closed because of the
    renovation of the Patent Office building. We will be touring
    major collections from both of those museums around the
    country.

                                Internet access

        We too are very involved in the Internet. We really got
    into that in the last three years or so. It is a bottom-up
    project at the Smithsonian with each of the museums, research
    institutes, and major programs having their home page. They are
    all collected on the Smithsonian Institution home page, but, in
    all, we must have 50 hours of materials on the Internet. It
    covers everything. It covers exhibitions. It covers
    collections.
        Some of it is technically very sophisticated, and becoming
    more so. Right now, we are in the process of putting together a
    virtual show for a millennium exhibition which will echo the
    150th tour that we made a few years ago. The people who have
    been working on this in the central administration and the
    Secretary's office in the Smithsonian are showing a lot of
    ingenuity in terms of the technical abilities to present that
    material.
        The Internet also permits us to deliver not only informal
    education of the sort that I am talking about, but formal
    education also. We are deeply involved with a number of
    projects. Perhaps in the lead at the moment is the National
    Museum of Natural History, which has been creating segments of
    new and old courses which are being used in many contexts.
        One of the most interesting ones is an after-school
    activity for both the normal school period and also during the
    summer. That seems to be working very well.
        This is the time for me to put in a plug for that request
    in the budget for information systems. Because, basically, it
    will enable the Smithsonian to create and enhance the
    infrastructure for the Internet and for collection management.
    It is really absolutely crucial to the growth and the building
    of this outreach kind of activity. I could go on with regard to
    that, but it is all in the testimony which I have submitted.

                                  Visitorship

        I would like to highlight just a few of the things that
    have been occurring at the Smithsonian over this past year. I
    am deleting most of this because I would go on much too long.
    But we did record over 31 million visits this past year to the
    museums plus the zoo. That is up about 4 percent from last
    year. Last year we were up about 15 percent from the year
    before. I suspect my colleagues are having the same experience.
        In part, it is because we are all doing wonderful things,
    and in part because a lot more people are coming to Washington,
    which may have something to do with that. But whether or not
    that is the case, the phenomenon is that attendance has been
    going up a lot.

                   Star-Spangled Banner preservation Project

        On December 1, 1998, we took down the Star-Spangled Banner,
    which you know is to be conserved and preserved. We took it
    down and it is now in a specially-built container for it. It is
    soon to be moved to a conservation lab where the conservation
    activities will occur.
        That laboratory is designed and has been constructed so
    people can watch the actual preservation and conservation of
    that flag. I think that exhibit in itself, over the 2-year
    period, is going to be a fascinating one and I'll bet you a lot
    of people are going to be interested in seeing that.

                        Smithsonian research institutes

        You know, we have a number of research institutes. The
    Smithsonian started in 1846, and the first Secretary saw it as
    a place of basic research. Soon thereafter, it took on the
    responsibility for being a museum. Those two sets of
    activities, research on the one hand and a museum or exhibition
    on the other--because obviously a lot of research is related to
    exhibition--have gone on since the middle of the nineteenth
    century.
        We have some extraordinary research facilities, including
    the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and the
    Astrophysical Observatory that is located in Cambridge that,
    with Harvard University, runs the Center for Astrophysics. We
    have a number of telescopes in Arizona, and we are in the midst
    of finishing the Submillimeter Array on Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
    SAO is very big-time, as astronomical organizations go.

                   Smithsonian environmental research center

        I want to just bring to your attention one that has not had
    quite that fame, which is the Smithsonian Environmental
    Research Center, in Edgewater, MD. One of the reasons that I
    bring it to your attention is that we have just completed a
    building with private funding that permits us to bring student
    groups, school groups, down there in a much better way than we
    could previously.
        SERC is involved with estuarine studies. It is involved
    with the study of water quality. It is involved with the impact
    of uses of land on the quality of water, and the Chesapeake Bay
    is obviously an extraordinary place for doing that.
        One of SERC's very large projects is identifying non-native
    species that come to the Chesapeake in the ballast of ships
    from all over the world, because when they let the ballast go
    which they have picked up in foreign places, out comes not only
    water but a whole variety of kinds of animals and flora.
        At the moment we are looking at non-native species of
    bacteria that can cause cholera. It is a part of the largest
    research project in the United States dealing with the origin
    and the impact of alien invasive species.
        In addition to that, SERC is playing a major role in
    demonstrating that stream-side forests and restored wetlands
    can reduce nutrient runoff into coastal waters. If one can do
    that by the dedication of a relatively small amount of land
    through natural means, the opportunity of being able to carry
    on what otherwise are viewed as inconsistent uses can be
    maximized.

                 Smithsonian's fiscal year 2000 budget request

        There is so much more going on in the research institutes
    that I would like to share with you, but time presses. I do
    want to talk a little bit about our request for fiscal year
    2000. We are asking for $447.4 million, which is an increase of
    $35.1 million above the fiscal year 1999 appropriations.
        But remember, our responsibilities include 16 museums, a
    zoo, and a lot of research facilities. Of this amount, $380.5
    million is for salary and expenses and $66.9 million for our
    capital program. And more than half of the S&E requested
    increase is for mandatories.
        The balance, which is $14 million, is for the following:
    one is for $2 million and 14 term positions, not permanent
    positions, at the Dulles Center to work on the restoration of
    aircraft for the Dulles Center when we have raised the money
    and it is built.
        It might seem well in advance of the time that the Dulles
    Center will be completed, but at this level we can renovate
    about four planes a month. If we are going to be in a position
    to really fill up that Dulles Center by the time that it is
    completed, we really should be starting on an enhanced program
    of renovation and restoration right now.
        There is $5 million and 11 positions for the National
    Museum of the American Indian. Most of this request, actually,
    is for the Cultural Resources Center in Suitland and for moving
    the materials that are stored up in the Bronx down to the new
    Suitland Cultural Resources Center, which of course is the
    place where we are storing the million artifacts, all that will
    not be shown in either the Mall Museum or in the New York
    location.
        Some of that money is for the beginning of exhibition
    development for the Mall Museum when it opens before 2003. That
    is my pledge to myself, in any event, that that shall occur.
        I mentioned $5 million that we are requesting for
    collection information systems, essentially to support the
    electronic capture and digitization of object and specimen
    images, which is the base work for everything that we can do
    with regard to electronic communication, and $2 million for
    security system modernization. That $2 million, in addition to
    the $2 million we got in the budget last year and the $4.7
    million that we got in the emergency supplemental that went to
    OMB for Y2K problems, will permit us to finish all of the
    internal electronic systems that we have intended to bring all
    of that up to high operational capacity.
        We probably will be looking for another $3 million to $3.5
    million in the future, but that will be mainly for electronic
    surveillance on the perimeters of buildings, not within them or
    at their entrances, and to permit us also to think about
    whether we want to use more cards for access to portions of
    buildings. We are not sure that we think that is such a good
    idea at the moment, but we want to evaluate that.
        The $2 million this year is going to permit us to finish
    the internal electronic security system which will give us a
    greater sense of comfort. Our experience with security of this
    sort has been excellent. We have lost very few things. We have
    had practically nothing defaced.
        Our insurance rates are about as low as they possibly can
    be for a museum. So we have been very fortunate in that regard.
    Largely, that has been because we have a security force that is
    really excellent.

                                capital Accounts

        The two remaining items are on the capital side: $47.9
    million for R&R and alteration and modification of facilities,
    and then $19 million for construction. The $19 million is to
    finish the National Museum of the American Indian. I think we
    will all be relieved when that occurs. We have run into a
    little problem, as you well know, with respect to the
    architects.
        We have replaced the architects in the sense that we have
    now taken over the lead in the management of that project, but
    we have hired other people to help us. I believe that we are
    going to bring that museum in on time. It looks very, very much
    as if we will.
        Clearly, we are not going to bring it in within the
    original budget, but we are not going to come to the Federal
    Government for any enhancements with respect to construction
    funds. We will find other money somehow in the private sector
    to finish that up.
        We are involved with a lawsuit presently, but my lawyer
    part of me tells me that I shouldn't be too worried and maybe I
    should look forward to collecting a little rather than being in
    a position of liability.

                repair, restoration and alteration of facilities

        That leaves the $47.9 million for R&R. You will recall that
    in the past we have analyzed our whole institutional repair and
    renovation problem. We have indicated that if we got a steady
    appropriation, inflation adjusted, of course, of $60 million,
    we could take care of all of our problems looking forward, and
    by judicious inspection and also the time of the use of the
    facilities. We are very, very confident of that.
        Our request at $47.9 million is all that was possible this
    year. But I have had conversations with the Office of
    Management and Budget and, clearly, if we are not in for major
    construction again, they are optimistic about the possibility
    of including in the President's budget $60 million. I know I
    have gotten a lot of support in the Congress with respect to
    adequate R&R funds.
        The major project that we are indicating that we will be
    proceeding with presently is the complete repair and renovation
    of the Patent Office Building where the National Portrait
    Gallery and National Museum of American Art and the Archives of
    American Art are located.
        The Patent Office Building is the fifth oldest building in
    Washington and it has not had serious work done in it since
    1964. It really needs a complete job.
        We are costing that at $60 million. There are others who
    think we should spend considerably more. But we are hopeful
    that for $60 million we can replace all of the systems, we can
    replace the roof, we can do all of the things that are
    necessary to bring that back, and we can increase the public
    space in the Patent Office building. We are in for $8 million,
    the first of four increments that will be necessary in order to
    fund this.
        There is a request for an advanced appropriation, which
    would permit us, of course, to sign a contract for the whole
    amount. Signing a contract for the whole $60 million at the
    outset would save a lot of money in many ways. I don't know
    whether that is going to be feasible with the Congress.
        But if it is not, I would strongly recommend that there be
    language of assurance in the conference committee report, or in
    the report to the individual houses, that will give us the
    comfort of being able to go forward with a contract for the
    whole.

                         Secretary Heyman's Objectives

        Well, that is about it. I am going to be working very hard
    between now and when I leave at the end of December. I pledge
    myself at least the accomplishment of four objectives. One of
    them is to break ground for the National Museum of the American
    Indian sometime this year, after the budget obviously is
    passed.
        The second one is to make sure that our capital campaign is
    well defined and ready to go. I intend to play some role, in a
    volunteer role after I leave, with respect to that capital
    campaign.
        Third, I want to bring to fruition the acquisition of a
    building someplace downtown which will permit us to carry out
    the plans that we have for the Patent Office building, the
    relocation certainly of a number of the activities that are
    within it so that we can create more public space in the Patent
    Office building.

                               prepared statement

        Finally, I am going to be working very hard on a new
    organization that we just formed, that had its first board
    meeting yesterday, to carry on business enterprises in the
    Smithsonian, hopefully at a level that will return a greater
    amount of unrestricted revenue on the trust side for the
    Institution to use.
        I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today,
    and there is a little regret in the fact that this will be my
    last opportunity. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of I. Michael Heyman
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
    Smithsonian Institution and to present a summary of our activities and
    our fiscal year 2000 budget request.
        As you may know, after considerable deliberation, I have informed
    the Smithsonian Board of Regents that I will step down as Secretary at
    the end of 1999. I do this with regret, of course, but also with
    pleasant anticipation. I regret departing from the Institution that is
    so important in our national life, and from those people who are
    responsible for what it does. But I look forward to returning home to
    California and reestablishing my ties to the University of California
    and the San Francisco Bay Area.
        I have tried to use my years as Secretary to promote a greater
    sense of the combined strength of the Smithsonian as a positive force
    in providing quality research and education programs for the nation. My
    priority as Secretary has been to maintain the quality of the programs
    offered by the Smithsonian and to enhance the visitor's experience
    while touring our museums and utilizing our research facilities. I have
    been equally dedicated to sharing that experience with people outside
    of Washington and to making our programs and collections more
    accessible to the nation. Increasing the Institution's outreach to
    other educational institutions and the general public is crucial in
    meeting this priority.
        Three Smithsonian programs that seek to promote outreach to every
    American have been particularly important to me during my tenure with
    the Institution--the Affiliations Program, the Smithsonian Institution
    Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES), and electronic access to the
    collections. The goal of the Affiliations Program is to promote greater
    public access to the Institution's collections by providing an
    alternative means for their exhibition outside of Washington. Since the
    inception of the Affiliations Program in 1996, there have been more
    than 150 separate inquiries from organizations interested in forming
    affiliations. There are currently 23 active affiliations projects and
    five have been fully implemented. Recently a long-term agreement with
    the National Museum of Industrial History in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,
    was finalized, and a 19th-century locomotive and hundreds of other
    industrial artifacts from our collections were moved to that site.
        A long-time Smithsonian program, SITES, has been sharing the wealth
    of the Institution's collections, research, and exhibitions with
    audiences around the world through short-term exhibitions of
    collections and representations. Each year, millions of people beyond
    Washington, D.C., experience these programs. SITES popularity has been
    significantly enhanced as it continues to secure substantial corporate
    and foundation support for its programs. Two new projects highlight
    this success: a grant to host an interactive traveling science
    exhibition Microbes: Invisible Invaders, Amazing Allies, which opens
    Memorial Day weekend on the National Mall and an alliance with a theme
    park located in Branson, Missouri, to present the children's geography
    exhibition, Earth 2U, Exploring Geography and the exhibition, American
    Glass: Masters of the Art.
        In recent years, SITES has developed a rural initiative in
    partnership with the Federation of State Humanities Councils. Called
    Museum on Main Street, this program has brought SITES exhibitions to
    more than 100 rural communities across the country and has generated
    tremendous enthusiasm and participation.
        In many ways, Internet-based learning is rapidly changing the
    nature and scope of education in America. The Smithsonian has witnessed
    a dramatic increase in the number of people who access our Internet
    website. At a rate already in excess of 30 million ``hits'' per month,
    our objects, databases, research, virtual exhibitions, lesson plans,
    and visitor services are being made available to schools, businesses,
    libraries, and individuals around the nation and the world. It is our
    goal to bring a large portion of our display collections on-line,
    making it possible for anyone with access to a computer to see and
    study these objects. We believe this evolving technology greatly
    enhances our ability to make Smithsonian programs and museums publicly
    accessible. We are pleased that the Administration has recognized our
    efforts in this area and has identified the Smithsonian as a key
    partner in its Digital Library initiative.
        The cornerstone of these important institutional outreach
    activities is education. The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)
    is expanding its efforts to become a national hub for science
    education. Last fall, six school districts around the nation began
    testing Mammals in Schools, a program to promote museum-style, object-
    based learning in middle school science classes. An electronic
    classroom with two-way videoconferencing links between the Museum's
    exhibition labs and classrooms enables teachers and NMNH scientists to
    assist students as they analyze mammal specimens, study their habitats,
    and build exhibitions based on what they have learned. Electronic field
    trips that simultaneously link several classrooms to Museum science
    labs via videoconferencing equipment are also being developed. For more
    than a year, the Museum has been providing an after-school learning
    program based on NMNH research on the ice age which has been presented
    to more than 10,000 young people in 25 States.
        Also on the education front, the National Science Resources Center
    (NSRC) received a grant in support of its Leadership and Assistance for
    Science Education Reform (LASER) Project. During the next six years,
    LASER will help local leaders introduce and implement inquiry-centered
    kindergarten through 8th-grade science curriculum materials in more
    than 300 school districts that serve approximately one million students
    nationwide. To accomplish this, NSRC has formed partnerships with eight
    regional sites located in Alabama, California, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
    Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington.
        Now, let me highlight some of the Smithsonian's achievements in the
    past year. We are very pleased to report that there were more than 31
    million visits recorded at the Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo
    in 1998, an increase of more than 4 percent from the 1997 total and the
    highest recorded total attendance since 1984.
        The National Air and Space Museum, the most visited museum in the
    world, attracted almost 10 million visits in 1998. This level of
    attendance last year was due primarily to the success of Star Wars: The
    Magic of Myth, an exhibition commemorating the 20th anniversary of the
    Star Wars trilogy. During its 15-month run, nearly one million people
    viewed the exhibit.
        The Air and Space Museum has also enjoyed the success of the IMAX
    feature Everest at the Langley Theater. Since the movie premiered in
    March 1998, more than 110,000 people have attended, making Everest the
    best-selling film ever in the evening schedule.
        Visits to the National Museum of American Art and the National
    Portrait Gallery increased last year, in part due to the revival of
    downtown Washington and the 7th Street art district. Looking to build
    on this momentum, both Museums are now participating in Third Thursday,
    a monthly art celebration organized by the downtown business and arts
    community, with special evening hours and guest lectures.
        In the past year, a number of exhibitions suggested the array of
    programs available at the Smithsonian: Theodore Roosevelt--Icon of the
    American Century, The Jewels of Lalique, Celebrity Caricature in
    America, Faces of Time: 75 Years of Portraits from Time Magazine, and
    Speak to My Heart: African American Communities of Faith and
    Contemporary Society. Also, a series of concerts was preformed by the
    Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra to mark the 100th anniversary of
    the birth of Duke Ellington. In November 1998, the ``Rock Hall'' opened
    at the NMNH, completing the final piece of the major, permanent
    exhibition complex that makes up the Janet Annenberg Hooker Hall of
    Geology, Gems and Minerals.
        On December 1, 1998, the National Museum of American History
    witnessed a virtually flawless ``takedown'' of the Star-Spangled Banner
    from its display in Flag Hall to begin a major conservation and
    preservation project. The History Channel, in collaboration with Museum
    staff, aired a documentary on the history of the flag and the
    preservation project, which is the largest textile conservation project
    ever undertaken by a museum. In October, the preservation project began
    in earnest when walls were erected to enclose the conservation and
    exhibition area, and a NASA expert, using near-infrared spectrometry,
    began assessing the amount of moisture and surface dirt on the flag.
    Currently, the flag is protected in a specially built 30-foot container
    while construction of the conservation lab and exhibition is completed.
    The new space is slated to open in April. Once the flag is relocated to
    the conservation lab, visitors will have the opportunity to observe the
    preservation project in progress.
        After a 4-year renovation, the Cooper-Hewitt, National Design
    Museum and its Design Resource Center in New York re-opened in June
    1998. With its state-of-the-art environmental systems and storage
    equipment, the Center is a model for managing museum collections and
    making them more accessible to the public, while maintaining the
    integrity of the historic structure.
        The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) in Edgewater,
    Maryland, ushered in a new era of learning for school groups with the
    opening of its new Philip D. Reed Education Center. The Center also
    doubles as a visitor center, featuring an orientation hall, a teacher
    resource library, office space, and an 80-seat multipurpose room. In
    order to provide school groups and the public with the latest
    information about SERC research, the building will be connected to SERC
    labs via video and audio networks.
        SERC's facility on the Chesapeake Bay provides a unique opportunity
    to study a variety of interconnected ecosystems whose impact is felt
    across the globe. Scientists at SERC have identified non-native species
    of bacteria, from ballast water on ships in the Chesapeake Bay, that
    can cause cholera. This is part of the largest research project in the
    United States dealing with the origin and impact of alien, invasive
    species in coastal and estuarine systems. Non-native species can
    endanger native species, disrupt food chains, and cause environmental
    and infrastructure damage exceeding, according to one estimate, $120
    billion in 1998. This research has produced tools and strategies that
    are being tested as a means to control invasive species. SERC is also
    playing a lead role in research that has demonstrated that streamside
    forests and restored wetlands can reduce nutrient runoff into coastal
    waters. In addition, collaboration with other institutions has enabled
    SERC to find ways to detect and quantify the toxic organism Pfiesteria,
    which can kill fish and poison humans.
        In the past year the Smithsonian has made tremendous advances in
    many other ongoing research efforts. At the Smithsonian Astrophysical
    Observatory (SAO), in partnership with the Harvard College Observatory,
    scientists' have developed low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
    which extends the technology to areas in the human body that could not
    be imaged previously, such as the lungs and sinuses. This technology
    will have applications ranging from detection of hard-to-reach tumors
    to use by people with pacemakers.
        Research efforts at the Smithsonian benefitted from John Glenn's
    historic return trip to space last fall. The Shuttle flight carried
    Spartan 210, a solar physics experiment package that included an
    ultraviolet coronagraph spectrometer (UVCS) built by SAO, to observe
    the Sun's outer atmosphere. Also, NASA's Submillimeter Wave Astronomy
    Satellite (SWAS) carried an instrument, designed by SAO scientists, to
    observe the heavens in submillimeter radiation and study the birth of
    stars.
        At the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) a study has
    revealed new data on conditions that support species diversity in
    ecological systems such as rainforests, grasslands, coral reefs, and
    lakes. The research conducted in a Panamanian rainforest on Barro
    Colorado Island, has led to developing methods for sustaining
    endangered species that are threatened with depletion and destruction.
        While research and planning for the 1999 Smithsonian Folklife
    Festival, featuring the State of New Hampshire, is well under way, the
    Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage is still experiencing the
    positive impact of previous years. The 1997 Festival featuring
    Mississippi and the 1998 Festival featuring Wisconsin were both
    replicated back home in the two States last summer. The Folklife Center
    is currently completing work on a cultural education kit for school
    children in the Mississippi Delta growing out of the 1997 Festival. A
    documentary, Wisconsin Folks, based on the 1998 Festival, aired on
    Wisconsin public television stations in December. In the year 2000, the
    Folklife Festival will feature the District of Columbia, the Rio
    Grande/Rio Bravo Basin (largely Texas and New Mexico), and a program on
    Tibetan culture.
        Now to summarize the Smithsonian's request for fiscal year 2000:
    for all operating and capital accounts we seek a total of $447.4
    million, an increase of $35.1 million above the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation. Of this amount, $380.5 million is for Salaries and
    Expenses, and $66.9 million is for our capital program.
        Of the requested increase in the Salaries and Benefits account, 58
    percent is attributable to mandatory costs for sustaining base
    operations and the remainder is for priority program requirements. For
    fiscal year 2000 these program priorities total $14 million and 25
    positions, and include activities related to the Dulles Center of the
    National Air and Space Museum, the Mall museum building of the National
    Museum of the American Indian, access to collections information, and
    modernization of the Institution's security system.
        For the Dulles Center, $2 million and 14 term positions would be
    used for the preparation of artifacts for relocation from the Garber
    Facility in Suitland, Maryland, to the new site in Virginia.
        For the National Museum of the American Indian, $5 million and 11
    positions are required for operational support at the new Cultural
    Resources Center in Suitland, Maryland, the move of objects from New
    York to Suitland, and exhibition development associated with the
    opening of the Mall museum.
        For access to collections information, $5 million is needed to
    support the electronic capture and digitization of object and specimen
    images, enrichment of related data, and storage, as well as retrieval,
    of that material.
        For security system modernization, $2 million is necessary to
    continue replacement of the Institution's current security system, and
    to provide engineering support for and staff training on a new system
    as well as its installation, testing, and documentation.
        In this request the Institution has consolidated its capital
    accounts, thus unifying all repair and restoration activity in one
    account and all construction in a separate account. Within the
    consolidated accounts, $47.9 million is identified for Repair,
    Restoration, and Alteration of Facilities and $19 million is identified
    for Construction.
        The $47.9 million requested for repair and restoration will target:
      --the repair and restoration of buildings on and near the Mall as
            well as buildings at the National Zoological Park
      --major capital renewal projects at the National Museum of Natural
            History and the renovation of the old Patent Office Building,
            which houses the National Museum of American Art and the
            National Portrait Gallery
        For renovation of the Patent Office Building the Institution
    requires $8 million in fiscal year 2000 and requests advance
    appropriations in order to award a single $60 million contract for this
    project. Receipt of the additional advance funds will allow cost-
    effective and time-critical renewal of the structure. We propose that
    $17 million of the advance appropriation become available on October 1,
    2000; another $17 million on October 1, 2001; and $18 million on
    October 1, 2002.
        Finally, in the Construction account, the Institution requests $19
    million for the Mall museum building of the National Museum of the
    American Indian. Of that amount, $13 million will be used to complete
    construction and $6 million will be used to equip the building. This
    final increment of funding will complete the Federal share--two-thirds
    of the building cost--authorized in the legislation enacted on November
    28, 1989. The other third, which totals $36.7 million, has been raised
    through the generosity of individuals, tribes, corporations, and
    foundations in this country and around the world.
        As you can see, Mr. Chairman, 1998 was an active year for the
    Smithsonian and I personally intend to have a very active final year at
    the Smithsonian. There are four chief priorities on my agenda. First, I
    plan on participating in the groundbreaking for the National Museum of
    the American Indian Mall museum this spring and taking all steps
    necessary to assure that it will open before 2003. Secondly, I expect
    to see that the Institution's capital campaign is well-defined.
    Thirdly, I want to bring to fruition the acquisition of an additional
    facility in close proximity to downtown Washington for the activities
    presently located in the Patent Office Building, with settled plans for
    renovation and appropriate organizations and programs. Finally, I
    intend to establish a new organization within the Smithsonian to carry
    on our business activities by appointing its board of directors and, at
    their recommendation, the chief operating officer.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today,
    and I have enjoyed working with you for the past five years. I would be
    pleased to respond to any questions you and the other Members of the
    Subcommittee may have concerning our fiscal year 2000 budget request or
    on any other matter related to the Smithsonian Institution. Thank you.

                      Summary statement of LEE H. HAMILTON

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Hamilton.
        Mr. Hamilton. Senator Gorton, thank you very much. It is a
    privilege to be here with you, back on Capitol Hill again, and
    with my colleagues this morning.
        I am requesting $6.04 million for fiscal year 2000. And
    that is the same----
        Senator Gorton. Certainly the most modest----
        Mr. Hamilton. Well, Senator, after listening to my
    colleagues make their requests, I have been very tempted to add
    a couple of zeros to that this morning.
        The request is the same as last year. I have only been at
    the Woodrow Wilson Center for a couple of months, so obviously
    I have a lot to learn there. But I have benefitted from a very
    talented staff there and from the scholars and fellows in
    residence, the board of trustees members, and what we call the
    Wilson Counsel, a group of advisors.
        I might say parenthetically that I was very pleased to have
    George Shultz join us on the Wilson Council just a few days
    ago.
        As you know, the Center is now situated in marvelous new
    facilities at the Reagan Building. I hope you and members of
    your staff will feel free to come down. We would be honored to
    have you join us as guests sometime. I certainly want to work
    closely with you and the staff to try to make the Center
    responsive to requests from Capitol Hill.
        I look back with considerable gratitude to the three past
    directors, Ben Read and Jim Billington and Charles Blitzer. As
    you probably know, we were saddened recently by the death of
    Charles Blitzer. He played a very important leadership role in
    bringing the Center to the Ronald Reagan Building.
        I benefit from the wise counsel, of course, of our
    Librarian of Congress, Jim Billington. I have had tremendous
    support from the former Chairman of the Board, Joe Flom, a New
    York attorney, and from the present chairman, Joe Cari, from
    Chicago.
        The Wilson Center is really quite an exciting place to be.
    It is an independent, wide-ranging institute for advanced study
    where vital current issues and their deep historical, cultural,
    and societal backgrounds are explored through research and
    dialogue. I think you might be pleased if you were to drop into
    one of the more than 200 meetings that take place there each
    year. You would find a very objective, non-partisan, free,
    open, dispassionate discourse taking place at the Center. We
    have state-of-the-art communication facilities which enable us
    to reach a large audience.
        My immediate goals are, first, to expand and strengthen the
    activities of the Center, second, to increase its visibility,
    third, to boost the private sector funding, which you and other
    Members of Congress have expressed an interest in. We are well
    on the way to getting that done.
        I also want to ensure that the work done by the Center is
    relevant and coherent, focused, and beneficial both to the
    policy maker and to the scholar.
        It was President Wilson's idea that the scholar and the
    policy maker, or the politician, are engaged in a common
    enterprise. The Center really tries to carry out that basic
    concept. We have had very able leadership by the interim
    director, Dean Anderson, to address the problems and I am very
    pleased to try to take over.
        Let me try to give you a flavor of some of the activities
    at the Center, if I may. We will have during the course of the
    year 150 scholars in the institution. Scholars and thinkers
    really, not all of them from academia. One-third of them will
    be foreigners.
        They work on almost every issue you can think about:
    national security, capital punishment, telecommunications,
    statistical work in the Federal Government, changes going on in
    Iran and Iraq and China, Ukraine, and many other places in the
    world.
        We have got a remarkable group of scholars. We have a young
    woman, a Chinese scholar/journalist working on a biography of a
    Beijing professor who was an early reformer in communist China.
    Her story, incidentally, is worth a few newspaper articles and
    maybe a book in and of itself. She is a remarkable woman.
        We have got a scholar working on telecommunications policy
    and meeting with government officials. We have got another
    scholar working on standards and statistics, working closely
    with the Census Bureau and has been in close touch with
    Congressman Dan Miller's subcommittee.
        We are working with the Close Up Foundation to develop
    three international programs for high school students. These
    programs will be aired nationally through C-Span and they will
    be on the cold war history, on America's role in the post-cold
    war period, and on 21 century environmental challenges.
        We are launching a project on the information revolution
    and its profound impact on the global economy. This rose out of
    meetings I had with entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley not too
    long ago.
        They are deeply concerned, as you very well know, coming
    from the State of Washington, about the relations between that
    industry and government, the private sector and all of the
    concerns that they have with regard to the information
    revolution. The project will be called Sovereignty in the
    Digital Age.
        Senator Lugar, from my home State of Indiana, and former
    CIA director, Jim Woolsey, will come soon to the Center to talk
    on energy security. They had an article in Foreign Affairs on
    that subject just recently. We have a conference coming up on
    space and foreign policy in the next century. All kinds of
    conferences on NATO, the EURO, United States and Taiwan, and
    many, many other programs. And one of our former scholars, here
    recently, has now become the top political advisor to the new
    king in Jordan.
        We have, as you very well know, the Wilson Quarterly, which
    is a unique, popular publication and one of the most widely
    circulated magazines of ideas. It has a circulation of about
    60,000, which is very high for that kind of a magazine. We have
    a Dialogue radio program now heard over 200 public and
    commercial stations.
        It reaches an audience, we think, of about 300,000. A
    number of your colleagues from the Senate will be joining us on
    that Dialogue program in the next few weeks.
        You asked in your opening comments about what direction we
    want to go in the institutions that we represent, those of us
    here at the table. Let me identify several directions for the
    Wilson Center.
        I intend to make the work of the Center more visible, more
    coherent, more focused. We are bringing on a public affairs
    director in a few days now. I know we have to work closely with
    key constituencies in the policy world, including you and your
    colleagues. We are now exploring collaborative programs with
    other institutes and universities and the Library of Congress.
        I think maybe the reason I am at the Wilson Center is to
    try to promote more interaction between the world of scholars
    and the world of the policy maker. And I want to try to do
    that. I want to bring more focus to the work of the Center by
    making it focused more on several themes instead of just going
    into a great variety of topics, an unending number.
        We want to focus on several themes: the U.S. role in the
    world, governance issues, key long-term future challenges, and
    projects that help frame the context and provide essential
    backdrop for some of the key public policy debates that we have
    today in this country.
        Second, I want the Wilson Center to be a very lively place.
    I want it to be an intellectual center. We are going to have
    the NATO Summit in this town in April. A lot of that is going
    to take place in the Reagan Building, and much of it will take
    place at the Wilson Center.
        We will have major events there and bilateral meetings. The
    National Security Advisor is coming to speak. The Secretary of
    State has already been there. She is going to come again. I
    have asked Bob Livingston to come down and talk a little bit
    about his experience as an appropriator. You might have some
    sympathy with his comments, Mr. Chairman.
        David Dreier, the Rules Committee Chairman, is coming down
    to speak to us about the Congress and the rules of the House. I
    am currently trying to get former Speaker Gingrich to come in
    and reflect on his speakership before the scholars at the
    Wilson Center.
        Another thing I want to do is expand some of our programs
    and activities and capabilities. It is probably correct to be
    critical of the Wilson Center. We do not have the kind of
    balance that we should have. For example, I have been appalled
    that we really haven't been doing anything on Africa and very
    little on the Middle East. So I want to bring more balance into
    the programs that we have.
        Some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives have
    scolded me a little bit because we don't have enough diversity
    in the staff and in the program. I think they are right in
    their criticism, and we are going to try to correct that in the
    years ahead.
        Like all of these institutes, or institutions you have been
    hearing about this morning, we have got a lot of modifications
    and modernization steps to take. Anybody dealing with library
    capabilities knows that scholars now are turning more and more
    to the electronic library rather than to the hard cover
    library, and that means a considerable upgrade of our
    facilities and equipment has to be brought about.
        I mentioned we are increasing our fund-raising efforts. We
    have brought on board an outstanding development director, Fred
    Bush, who is doing excellent work in trying to raise additional
    money in the private sector. The Center really is in good
    financial shape. We are on track to have our best year yet in
    unrestricted giving. We have had an investment policy committee
    that has done awfully well.
        We have had a little help, of course, from a bull market
    stock market. But our endowment has gone up substantially. But
    we do not want to rest on our laurels. More than 50 percent of
    the funding of the Center now comes from the private sector,
    and that will surely increase.
        Let me just conclude by saying that I think the Wilson
    Center--at a time when this country is very deeply concerned
    about the quality of political discourse in the Nation--I think
    the Wilson Center gives us a model of how political discourse
    should proceed in a representative democracy.
        It is a place where the world of ideas and the world of
    practice come together. Neither is suppressed and both are
    encouraged. Our premise is that by listening to all points of
    view, stepping back to take a broader view, and engaging in
    discussion and persuasion, a people can make better decisions
    in a representative democracy.
        We believe that at the Wilson Center. We deeply believe in
    the free trade of ideas, that the best test of an idea is its
    power to get accepted in the competition of the market, and
    that in the end better ideas will prevail.

                               prepared statement

        My task, I think, is to make the Center a bright and
    shining intellectual Mecca where we offer a place for
    thoughtful, objective, serious, non-partisan dialogue on the
    toughest issues that this country confronts. And with your help
    and support we will make it a unique presidential monument in a
    city of monuments. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Lee H. Hamilton
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Byrd, Members of the Subcommittee: It is a
    privilege to have this opportunity to return to the Congress, an
    institution in which I had the honor to serve for over three decades.
    It is also a special, personal pleasure to be with former colleagues. I
    appreciate having this chance to speak in support of the Wilson
    Center's request for an appropriations of $6.04 million for fiscal year
    2000, the same request as last year.
        I have been at the Woodrow Wilson Center for two months. I have
    benefited from the extraordinarily talented staff of the Center, the
    scholars and fellows in residence, and the Board of Trustees and the
    rapidly expanding Wilson Council that George Shultz recently joined.
    The Center is now fully ensconced in its marvelous new facilities in
    the Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. I hope each member
    of the Subcommittee and your able staff will visit the new Center.
        I want to work closely with you and your staff. With your help and
    support, I look forward with enthusiasm to the challenge of helping
    this Center do its important work.
        Let me also say at the start that I look back with gratitude to the
    three previous directors--Ben Read, Jim Billington, and Charles
    Blitzer--whose unstinting efforts helped make the Center what it is
    today. We were saddened by the recent death of Charles Blitzer: he
    played a leadership role in bringing the Center to the Ronald Reagan
    Building. I continue to benefit from the wise counsel of Jim
    Billington, the Librarian of Congress and a member of our Board. And I
    also want to commend Joe Flom, the former Chairman of the Board of
    Trustees, for his strong leadership and to express enormous confidence
    in Joe Cari, the new Chairman of the Board.
        As I meet with people around town and with some of my former
    colleagues, I am impressed with the strong support the Center enjoys.
    Scores of policymakers, academicians, and friends of the Center have
    sought me out to express their admiration for the Center's work. These
    people form a remarkable network across the country, indeed across the
    world.
        The Wilson Center is an exciting and vibrant public/private
    partnership. The Center remains Washington's only independent, wide-
    ranging institute for advanced study where vital current issues and
    their deep historical and societal background are explored through
    research and dialogue. The Center provides a unique forum for
    objective, non-partisan, free and open, and dispassionate discourse,
    and it has some state of the art communications equipment.
        My immediate goals for the Center are to expand and strengthen its
    activities, increase its visibility, boost its private sector funding,
    and ensure that the work done by the Center is relevant, coherent,
    focused, and mutually beneficial for the policymaker and the scholar.
        I recognize that the Center has had some problems in recent years,
    including the problem of relating its work to current policy issues.
    Steps have been taken under the able leadership of interim Director
    Dean Anderson to address these problems, and I believe that the Center
    is now moving in the right direction.
                            activities at the center
        Let me give some specifics and some flavor of the good and useful
    activity at the Center which you are helping to support:
      --We are hosting a good, even pre-eminent, group of thinkers. 150
            scholars and fellows will work here at some point during 1999.
            A third of them will be foreigners. They work on diverse
            issues: national security, adoption, capital punishment,
            telecommunications, statistical work in the U.S. Government,
            Iran, Yugoslavia, economic change in China, the United States
            and Ukraine, and Iraq.
          We have a Chinese scholar and journalist working on a biography
            of a Beijing professor who pushed for reform in the earlier
            Communist years in China. She is a remarkable person whose own
            story as an advocate of reform is a book in itself.
          I hear many heartening vignettes of our scholars and fellows
            getting around town and interacting with policymakers. Let me
            cite two examples. One scholar, working on US
            telecommunications policy history, meets regularly with Federal
            Communications Commission colleagues. Another scholar, working
            on standards and statistics, is engaged in discussions with
            experts at the Census Bureau on improving statistical work. She
            has also been in touch with Members of Congressman Dan Miller's
            subcommittee. I am encouraging more such activity.
        You can find any number of interesting activities taking place at
    the Center:
      --Working with the Close Up Foundation, we are developing
            international programs for high school students. Programs will
            start to be aired nationally this spring by C-SPAN. The first
            three topics are: cold war history, America's role in the post-
            cold war world, and 21st century environmental challenges.
      --We are launching a project on the information revolution given its
            profound impact on the global economy and on relations between
            governments and the private sector. This project brings
            together entrepreneurs, policymakers and scholars. A first
            series, entitled ``Sovereignty in the Digital Age'', will
            explore how to balance national sovereignty with the need for
            new international rules in an age in which the Internet and
            electronic commerce operate across borders.
      --Senator Lugar and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey will soon discuss
            their proposal for increasing our energy security in the next
            century.
      --We will host a March conference on space and foreign policy in the
            next century.
      --Conferences will also be held on NATO, the EURO and its
            implications for the United States, the United States and
            Taiwan, North Korea, Indonesia, China, including China's
            environmental policies, and several transborder issues, such as
            informal economies, crime, water issues, and the role of women
            and of ethnic minorities.
      --The Kennan Institute, which does superb work on Russia, Ukraine,
            and the Newly Independent States, has opened an office in Kyiv.
            Several presidential candidates in Ukraine will speak this year
            at the Center. The Kennan Institute will also have a conference
            on rural Russia and a major conference on Stalin in the fall.
            Because of its lengthy association with Russia, the Kennan
            Institute has a standing and a credibility that few, if any,
            other American institutions enjoy.
      --The Latin American program has recently organized meetings in
            Mexico that opened an important new dialogue concerning peace
            in the Chiapas province. A similar type of effort to forge an
            internal peace process in Colombia is underway.
      --The Center is often facilitating Track Two, non-official diplomacy.
            The Center plays this key role because of the deep respect it
            has gained internationally.
        An important part of the Center's outreach involves not just the
    dozen or so books that the Center will publish a year on policy issues,
    but its journal and radio program.
        The Wilson Quarterly, the Center's journal, is a unique, popular
    publication and one of the most widely circulated magazines of ideas,
    providing a one-stop survey of the world of ideas. Its 60,000-plus
    readers are spread across the country; less than 15 percent of them are
    academics. The Quarterly's recent articles include: America's
    ``hyperdemocracy,'' the digital economy, the state of rural America,
    the politics and future of Brazil, the history of money and politics in
    America. The next issue will feature an article on Nelson Mandela's
    five years in office. And the Quarterly's section entitled Periodical
    Observer surveys more than a hundred academic and intellectual journals
    and reviews a few dozen of the more important articles.
        The Dialogue radio program has been extraordinarily successful.
    Dialogue, a forum for the discussion of ideas, is now heard on over 200
    public and commercial stations nationwide, 23 European stations over
    the World Radio Network, and worldwide by way of the Armed Forces Radio
    Network. Its domestic audience is well over 300,000. In the month or
    so, Senators Lugar and Moynihan, former Senator Paul Simon, and Jim
    Woolsey are among the guests on the show.
                        where the center goes from here
        As impressed as I am with what happens at the Center, I think we
    can and will do better. I want to move the Center in several
    directions:
        First, I intend to make the work of the Center more visible, more
    coherent, and more focused: a public affairs director will be in place
    this month to spearhead a more coordinated effort. The Center must work
    closely with its key constituencies in the policy world, including you
    and your colleagues. Collaborative programs with other institutes,
    universities, and the Library of Congress are also being explored.
        Coherence can be achieved through better interaction between our
    visiting scholars and policymakers. The policymaker and the scholar are
    engaged in a common enterprise, said President Wilson, and both can
    benefit by this process.
        I especially want to bring more coherence to the Center's work by
    putting more focus on a few central themes at the core of the Center's
    mission. Let me mention a few such themes:
      --The United States role in the world and issues of partnership and
            leadership;
      --Governance issues, including such issues as the key features in
            developing democratic institutions, democratic society, civil
            society, and civic participation;
      --Key, long-term, future challenges facing the United States and the
            world, such as limiting the spread of weapons of mass
            destruction or sustaining global financial stability;
      --Projects that reflect the broad interests of President Wilson; and
      --Projects that help frame the context and provide the essential
            backdrop for some of our key public policy debates.
        Not all research and program activity can or should fit into this
    or any straightjacket, but broad themes can increase coherence in the
    work at the Center.
        Second, I want the Wilson Center to be a lively place, Washington's
    intellectual center. The April NATO Summit will take place in and
    around the Ronald Reagan Building, and some 60 heads of States may be
    here. We expect to schedule several major events and bilateral meetings
    during the Summit in our facilities. Other speakers are expected soon.
    National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, a Board member, is coming, and
    Secretary Albright, another Board Member and a recent visitor, has
    indicated that she wants to return to speak where she once was a
    scholar-in-residence. I am working to schedule appearances at the
    Center for Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and David Dreier. Foreign
    leaders will also speak at the Center.
        Third, I would like to expand some of our programs, activities and
    capabilities. For example, I want to see the Center do some work on
    Africa and expand work on the Middle East. In the United States
    Program, I am interested in such issues as: why do many Americans not
    vote, how do you increase civic participation, and how do you attract
    better people to government service. Some modifications in the Library
    are also needed to allow for greater use by scholars, and for better
    ``electronic library'' capabilities. And while the new facilities at
    the Center contain state of the art communications, I feel the Center
    should work towards an all electronic media infrastructure that can
    significantly enhance our outreach capabilities. Such expansions will
    lead to increased requests at the appropriate time.
        Fourth, we are increasing our fund raising efforts. I know this is
    a key concern of many of you. I am committed to increasing our private
    sector giving, and we will do so under the able leadership of Fred
    Bush, our Development Director, but the Congressional appropriations
    remains the essential base for our fund raising efforts.
        The Center is in good financial shape, and we are on track to have
    our best year yet in unrestricted giving. And thanks to the wisdom of
    our investment policy committee (and with a little help from the bull
    market), our endowment has gone over the $30 million mark.
        But we can't rest on these laurels. More than fifty percent of the
    Center's funding now comes from sources other than those appropriated
    for the Center. That trend toward greater reliance on private funding
    needs to continue. Our future growth will depend in large part on
    successful, private fund raising. I am committed to making several fund
    raising trips around the country in order to expand sources of funding
    for the Center.
                                   conclusion
        The Wilson Center provides the model of how political discourse
    should proceed in a representative democracy. The Center is the place
    where the world of ideas and the world of practice come together--
    neither is suppressed; both are encouraged. Our premise is that by
    listening to all points of view, stepping back to take a broader view,
    and engaging in discussion, deliberation, and persuasion, people can
    make better decisions in a representative democracy. We believe in the
    free trade of ideas, that the best test of an idea is its power to get
    accepted in the competition of the market, and that, in the end, better
    ideas will prevail.
        Our task is to make the Center a bright and shining intellectual
    mecca: we offer a place for thoughtful, objective, serious, nonpartisan
    dialogue on the key public policy issues of the day. With your
    continued support, the Wilson Center can remain a unique presidential
    monument in a city of monuments.
        Thank you.

                               Budget reductions

        Senator Gorton. Lee, we concluded with you, so perhaps I
    will ask you your questions right now and be finished.
        First, did you have anything to do with the budget
    submission that we have before us now?
        Mr. Hamilton. Not very much. It really was put into shape
    before I got there, and it is transmitted by me to you. It was
    shaped principally by Dean Anderson, who was the acting
    director.
        Senator Gorton. What is your reflection on the reductions
    in the last several years? Has much of that been made up by
    private contributions?
        Mr. Hamilton. Well, I think the serious part of the
    reductions has been the sharp decline we have had in the number
    of scholars we were able to bring on board. We are going to
    make up some of that with private funding. But we have had a
    fairly sharp drop in the number of scholars, especially public
    policy scholars. Too sharp a drop, in my judgment.
        Senator Gorton. Has it been a drop in quality as well as in
    quantity?
        Mr. Hamilton. I do not think so. I am uniformly impressed
    with the quality. We have a very rigorous selection process. I
    think almost any academic panel would look upon our scholars as
    being preeminent. They are very, very good. We are going to
    keep that quality high.
        Senator Gorton. If you have more support, either public or
    private, will a restoration in the number of those scholars be
    your first priority?
        Mr. Hamilton. It will be among my first priorities. We have
    some things that have to be done. I mentioned the library
    electronic facilities. We want to upgrade some of the
    communication facilities. So along with those matters, and
    perhaps a couple of others, the priority would be for the
    scholars, yes.
        Senator Gorton. Your predecessor said that getting everyone
    together under one roof was going to have a very, very positive
    impact. In a sense you weren't that familiar with them
    beforehand, but is that the reaction of----
        Mr. Hamilton. I think so. First of all, we are very proud
    of the facilities. It is a very nice working atmosphere. Having
    everybody together is a tremendous help for us in terms of
    internal communication. I think it will be a tremendous
    advantage for us.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you very much. I have welcomed you
    before. We talked about this toward the end of your last term.
    I think the Wilson Center is very, very fortunate to have you,
    Lee.
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. We are going to be happy to work with you.
        Mr. Hamilton. I appreciate that.

                  National Air and Space Museum--Dulles center

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Heyman, I think I will go backwards
    across the panel here. I would like you to tell me a little bit
    more about the Air and Space Museum extension at Dulles. It
    seems to me the schedule is an extremely ambitious one,
    considering the amount of money that has been raised. Is 2003
    realistic? How are we going to get that money?
        Mr. Heyman. Well, I will know better just before I leave
    how realistic that is. We have a very enthusiastic director of
    the Air and Space Museum in Don Engen, and he refuses to view
    any situation pessimistically. He might well be right.
        We have--he, but with our help, has reorganized his
    campaign staff recently and I am considerably more optimistic
    now about its capacities to raise that money.
        But as I say, there are going to be some very big asks made
    in the next 3 to 4 months. If those come in close to the asks
    themselves, then I will be able to report not only optimism but
    optimism based upon some facts. But I am optimistic.
        Senator Gorton. Is $8 million to $10 million a year still
    your best estimate for the operational expenses when it is
    open?
        Mr. Heyman. Well, you know, I have not gone over again how
    we budgeted that. I do know perfectly well that we are going to
    have to come in for some Fderal help with regard to staff,
    especially for maintenance and security.
        What the sources of revenue are going to be for staff over
    time, I am not sure. The more endowment we can raise,
    obviously, the more we are going to be able to make that self-
    sufficient. The more that the enterprises out there, parking,
    theaters, restaurants, and shops are really successful, the
    less we will have to be looking for Federal help. But I think
    we will be ready by the next budget cycle to give you some much
    better estimations of what our future requests might be.

                         Smithsonian business ventures

        Senator Gorton. Talk to me for a few minutes about your
    business ventures and the partial spinoff there. Obviously, you
    have been very successful and have the opportunity to be even
    more successful in that connection. But how does it relate to
    the senior management--how does the mix take place?
        Mr. Heyman. Let me start this way: business enterprises, or
    the auxiliary enterprises of the Institution, reached their
    peak someplace in the mid-eighties, and since then they have
    not grown.
        The nets that are realized have really not grown, even
    before inflation adjustment. The dollar figures have been
    pretty steady. We have given an awful lot of thought to whether
    or not those can be enhanced. We have examined, with the help
    of consultants, what other institutions that are somewhat
    similar to ours, nonprofits that carry on some of these kinds
    of activities, have done. We looked at a number of models with
    respect to trying to enhance the success of these auxiliary
    enterprises.
        We put to the Regents three choices. One was that we should
    not do anything; one was that we really ought to spin these off
    and make them a for-profit corporation which is a subsidiary in
    some way to the Smithsonian; and the middle path was to try to
    proceed by getting a new organization internally to carry on
    the activities, which hopefully will enhance the success of
    these enterprises.
        Well, under Howard Baker's sage leadership--you know,
    Howard is a Regent and has been chairman of the Regent's ad hoc
    committee on business--we chose the middle path. So what we are
    doing is, we are putting together a board of directors for the
    business enterprises.
        Those are largely the magazine, the shops, the catalog
    sales, product development and licensing, and whatever it is
    that we are going to do in the media world, mainly in
    television and in film, and also what might go on commercially
    with respect to the Internet.
        We have put together the first half of a board which
    consists of three non-Smithsonian people and three Smithsonian
    people. Actually, it is four and two, because our consultant
    for all of this is a member of that board. But he will be going
    back completely into the private sector pretty soon. They are
    going to select a CEO who has a kind of a background that will
    hopefully help bridge the gap between a very entrepreneurial
    activity and a cultural institution of our sort.
        Obviously, having two Smithsonian members of that board,
    the Under Secretary and Bob Fri, the Director of the Natural
    History Museum, is going to help a lot with respect to that
    kind of coordination.
        As I said, we had our first organizing meeting yesterday.
    The group heard a report from consultants who have been looking
    for potential candidates for CEO and concluded that there are
    some who look good, but they wanted to go a little more broadly
    in terms of the search. Then we will see, when a new CEO comes
    in, with hopefully a lot of advice from some of us in the
    Institution, but really putting them in a kind of separate de
    facto category.
        Final decisions of note still are going to have to go
    through the Secretary. There are issues that will certainly
    still have to go to the Regents. But the Regents and the
    Secretary have concluded that we are going to try to keep our
    hands off the operations, to the extent feasible, in order to
    permit it to enhance itself.
        Now, what will be the result of this? I suspect, for
    instance, just to give one mundane example, we will probably go
    to specialized catalogs as well as a single catalog, and we
    will be looking at practices that others are carrying on.
        Probably our conversations that have been going on now for
    2, 2\1/2\ years with especially film media will get enhanced by
    having people who are more expert in the business as well as in
    the content in those conversations. We might go into additional
    magazines in addition to the Smithsonian Magazine. There are
    just a lot of potential possibilities within the framework of
    what we do presently. I expect that is what will start to
    occur.
        It is a brave venture, from my point of view, to mix these
    cultures. But, you know, there are other places that are doing
    it. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has had some experience with
    that. The National Geographic Society surely is having a lot of
    experience with that presently. Minnesota Public Radio has.
    There have been a number of bench marking opportunities for us,
    which would make one optimistic about the outcome.

                         woodward and lothrop building

        Senator Gorton. Thank you. When you lost the Woodward and
    Lothrop building you lost one possibility for more space. What
    is the alternative?
        Mr. Heyman. Well, there are a number of other suitable
    buildings in that general neighborhood, and we are busy at work
    at the moment making inquiry concerning them. Our probabilities
    are pretty high that we are going to be able to take care of
    most of the problems that we wanted to take care of with
    Woodward and Lothrop.
        The joy of Woodward and Lothrop was not only location but
    its size and being able to come up with 350,000 to 400,000
    square feet, which is sort of the range we need in order to be
    moving over rent-paying activities from other places to help in
    the financing of that building. But there are opportunities
    around and we are spending a lot of energy right this instant
    on exploring those.
        Senator Gorton. I think maybe I will skip over to you, Mr.
    Wilker, because Woodward and Lothrop reminds us of the opera,
    and now you've got it. How has that impacted on the capital
    improvements at the Center?
        Mr. Wilker. Now that the opera has decided to remain at the
    Kennedy Center as its home it has caused us to look again at
    the center block project, since the opera will be the largest
    user of the Opera House, and that is one of the largest
    portions of the center block project.
        We will be in discussions with them over the course of this
    spring to determine what sort of impacts that will have on the
    way we go about doing our accessibility and life safety
    renovations of that particular facility.
        So we haven't delayed the center block project. But we have
    reordered within that the elements that we will take first. So
    we are working on the building systems and other areas and will
    push back the Opera House about a year.
        Senator Gorton. You say they will be the principal user of
    the----
        Mr. Wilker. In terms of dates. They will have about 26 out
    of the 40-week regular season of the Opera House.
        Senator Gorton. You were ecstatic, it seems to me, when you
    described the first renovation of the Concert Hall. It lived up
    to your expectations and everything that you thought would
    happen happened?
        Mr. Wilker. Then some. And more. Not only was it a cost
    effective renovation, but I think from a patron's standpoint,
    in terms of usability, in terms of accessibility, particularly
    for disabled patrons, it was a successful renovation. It has
    been called by many members of the press a model of
    accessibility for cultural institutions in the performing arts.
    So we are very proud of having a facility that is so accessible
    and so user-friendly.
        Senator Gorton. Back when this whole series of projects was
    first proposed, the 10-year plan was supposed to cost $171
    million. How accurate now is that figure?
        Mr. Wilker. We feel very confident that we can remain
    within that figure which we established at the beginning of the
    comprehensive plan. Each year we revisit the plan and update it
    and resubmit it to Congress, and we feel very good about
    staying within that budget.

                     Restrictions on Paul Mellon's bequest

        Senator Gorton. Well, Mr. Powell, you get to be last.
        With Paul Mellon's will, money, and paintings, do you have
    any restrictions on the use of the money or the way in which
    the paintings will be displayed?
        Mr. Powell. The bequest of funding is restricted to the two
    primary areas that Mr. Mellon has always been supportive of,
    which are acquisitions and educational programs. As far as the
    works of art go, we have no particular restrictions in terms of
    an obligation to display them all of the time or not. But they
    will be of such quality that we will want to display as many of
    them as we can.

                                   Attendance

        Senator Gorton. In your gratifying and high attendance, how
    do you ascribe the portions of that attendance that are due to
    these very highly publicized special exhibitions as against
    your regular exhibitions themselves? How much have they
    enhanced attendance?
        Mr. Powell. Well, I think the Special Exhibitions Program
    is part of the equation that attracts the public as well as
    scholars. We have had enormously popular exhibitions in the
    last few years. And Secretary Heyman mentioned earlier that the
    attendance at the Smithsonian has been increasing. Ours has
    likewise been increasing incrementally each year. Part of that
    is due to special exhibitions.
        Many people come from outside the Washington area for
    special exhibitions, but the core audience is here. They tend
    to enhance one another. People who come for special exhibitions
    also then usually--I would say the vast proportion of them--go
    to the permanent collections.
        Special exhibitions tend to also attract first-time
    visitors to museums. They might tend to come for a Van Gogh or
    a Sargent and then go on and see other aspects of the museum.
    So they are very much hand and glove.
        Senator Gorton. Do you ever have lines just stretching
    around and around the block on a regular day?
        Mr. Powell. We have lines stretching not quite around the
    block but inside the National Gallery, down in the Rotunda, for
    the Sargent exhibition. Most of those folks seemed to be going
    off into the American and the Northern Galleries afterwards or
    before.

                                art care Funding

        Senator Gorton. One small budget item that I would like to
    ask about. Art care seems to be, as I understand it, $2 million
    less in the way that the budget request came to us than what
    was submitted to OMB. Is that a problem?
        Mr. Powell. We had put in a request for some support for
    the Art Nouveau exhibition----
        Senator Gorton. I see.
        Mr. Powell [continuing]. The millennium exhibition, and
    that did not go forward. But that would not impact on anything
    other than that program.
        Senator Gorton. I see.
        Mr. Powell. We are actively looking for support for that as
    we speak.
        Senator Gorton. All right then. I should like to thank each
    of you for your dedicated service and for the great enthusiasm
    each one of you has shown for his institution, enthusiasm that
    we think is well-warranted. And assuming that the budget
    resolution and Senator Stevens are generous enough, we hope to
    be able to help you out.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gorton. There will be some additional questions
    which will be submitted for your response in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Bryan L. Dorgan
                         museum of the american indian
        Question. When will the ground-breaking occur and how long will
    construction of the Museum take?
        Answer. The ground-breaking for the National Museum of the American
    Indian Mall museum is scheduled for September 28, 1999. Site
    preparation work will begin this summer. We expect to have a general
    contractor for the building on site by spring 2000. Our projected
    public opening date is December 2002.
        Question. How is the collection being displayed in the interim?
        Answer. The collection is one of the world's largest assemblages of
    artifacts of the indigenous cultures of the Western hemisphere and
    includes nearly one million objects ranging from the Arctic Circle to
    Tierra del Fuego, and includes the Caribbean. Eighty percent of the
    collection is archaeological and 20 percent ethnographic.
        A portion of the collection is on display at the George Gustav Heye
    Center in the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House in Manhattan. The
    Museum also has objects on display in Canada, Alaska, California,
    Virginia, Minnesota, Georgia and New York. And, three inaugural
    exhibitions are being planned for the opening of the Mall museum in
    2002.
        The majority of the collection currently is stored at the Research
    Branch which is located in the Bronx in New York. The Museum has
    initiated the process of relocating the collection to the Cultural
    Resources Center in Suitland, Maryland, which will be the home of the
    collection and serve as a research, conservation program and reference
    center for the Museum. In preparation for the move, a digitized image
    will be taken of each object which will make the collection more
    accessible to the public.
        Question. What is the status of repatriation of Indian remains and
    grave goods (pursuant to Public Law 101-185) held by the Smithsonian?
        Answer. National Museum of Natural History Repatriation Activity.--
    Summary reports of potentially sacred or patrimonial objects were
    completed and mailed to all federally recognized tribes in February of
    1997. A total of 170 reports encompassing approximately 40,000 items
    from 193 cultures were produced and mailed to more than 1000 Native
    American organizations. A listing of some 200,000 culturally
    unidentified objects was distributed to the tribes in July of 1997.
        By June 1, 1998, the Repatriation Office completed and distributed
    inventory reports of the human remains and funerary objects held in the
    anthropology collections to all federally-recognized Native American
    tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and Alaska Native groups. These
    reports met the NMNH's long-standing commitment to finish an inventory
    of its Native American collection, distribute the results to the
    tribes, and meet the deadline requirements of the 1996 amendment to the
    National Museum of the American Indian Act. More than 1000 reports were
    sent to Tribes, Native Villages, Native Corporations, and other Native
    groups. More than 15,000 cataloged sets of human remains in the
    physical Anthropology collection and more than 230,000 items in the
    archaeology collections were reported in the inventories. Each
    inventory report contained a complete list of all human remains and
    archaeological objects from a specific State or group of States
    depending on the aboriginal territories of the groups involved.
        To date, skeletal remains of more than 3,224 Native Americans have
    been repatriated. By the end of 1999 an additional 1,500 sets of
    remains will be repatriated to tribes in the northern plains. This
    total, almost 5,000, returned by the beginning of the year 2000,
    represents approximately \1/3\ of the collection of Native American
    skeletal remains in the Museum. This number constitutes, by far, the
    largest number of repatriations by any organization in the United
    States. In addition, the NMNH has already returned more than 1,000
    funerary objects, of cultural patrimony, or sacred objects subject to
    repatriation under the law.
        For complete details on the NMNH Repatriation Office and all of its
    activities please visit our web site at: http://www nmnh.st.edu/anthro/
    repatriation
        National Museum of the American Indian Repatriation Activity.--The
    National Museum of the American Indian's Repatriation Office has
    developed a strategy for the return of human remains and funerary
    objects to their affiliated indigenous communities at the
    recommendation of the NMAI's Board of Trustees. This plan anticipates
    the Museum repatriating remains directly from the Research Branch, in
    the Bronx, New York, rather than after their relocation to the new
    Cultural Resources Center in Suitland, Maryland. The current time line
    for the relocation of the collection from New York to Maryland is
    approximately five (5) years. The goal during this five year period is
    to facilitate the return of as many previously deaccessioned human
    remains and funerary objects as possible. NMAI staff members
    responsible for the treatment and disposition of the human remains
    agree that this is the most respectful approach to this sensitive
    issue, avoiding any unnecessary handling or disturbance of the human
    remains.
                    outreach to areas outside of washington
        Question. What specifically are you doing to increase the
    accessibility of the Smithsonian's collection to people who are unable
    to visit Washington?
        Answer. The Smithsonian Institution lends approximately 200,000
    objects and specimens to over 1,300 domestic and 700 foreign
    institutions annually. Through this lending program, SI has assisted
    thousands of institutions with specific exhibitions and research
    projects. The Board of Regents adopted the Smithsonian Policy on
    Collections-Based Affiliations in September 1996 with the goal of
    dramatically increasing outreach to other educational institutions, and
    thereby a broader public, through longer-term loans that would be paid
    for by a third party.
        At this time, there are 22 active affiliations in 10 different
    States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and another 12 are in
    negotiation. A large number of 19th century collections from the Museum
    of American History have already been sent on long-term loan to
    Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to the new National Museum of Industrial
    History.
        The Institution has also begun an aggressive program to digitize a
    large number of the Institution's collections for the purposes of
    research, preservation and increased public access. Digitized images
    will be linked to information on the object, as well as to associated
    exhibits and educational curriculum material. The capabilities of the
    World Wide Web are being utilized to deliver rich data from the
    Smithsonian's vast collections and research on these collections.
        Question. You referred to the SITES program and its outreach to
    rural communities. Can you provide me with a list of the communities
    served by the program? Are there any in North Dakota?
        Answer. SITES' mission is to share Smithsonian collections and
    resources through traveling exhibitions to educational, scientific,
    cultural, and commercial institutions across the United States. Since
    1952, SITES has circulated hundreds of exhibitions to thousands of
    locations in every State in the Union. Through an initiative called
    Museum on Main Street, SITES, in partnership with State humanities
    councils, provides rural museums with top-quality Smithsonian
    exhibitions and related public programs. Since 1994, 112 communities in
    20 States (see list below) have participated in this program,
    enlivening the cultural landscape in isolated communities, and at the
    same time, reaffirming the Smithsonian's role as the ``nation's
    museum.'' The North Dakota State Humanities Council has received
    information on Museum on Main Street, and SITES is awaiting their
    response to the most recent invitation to participate.
        In addition to its Museum on Main Street exhibitions, SITES reaches
    smaller communities through a partnership with the American Library
    Association and through an innovative railroad project called Artrain.
    Two exhibitions from these programs are scheduled for North Dakota: Art
    in Celebration! was presented onboard Artrain in Minot from July 23-26,
    1998; The Jazz Age in Paris: 1914-1940 will be shown at the Fargo
    Public Library from August 19--September 30, 1999. In addition, The
    Prairie Schoolhouse: A Photo Essay was shown at the Plains Art Museum
    in Fargo from November 28, 1998, to January 10, 1999.
                                Rural Initiative
                           participating communities
    Butler, AL

    Elberta, AL

    Monroeville, AL

    Scottsboro, AL

    Bisbee, AZ

    Jerome, AZ

    Parker, AZ

    Payson, AZ

    Corona, CA

    Lompoc, CA

    Marysville, CA

    Tulare, CA

    Cartersville, GA

    Cordele, GA

    Dublin, GA

    Gainesville, GA

    La Grange, GA

    Moreland, GA

    Thomasville, GA

    Waycross, GA

    Boone, IA

    Corning, IA

    Spencer, IA

    Wellsburg, IA

    Carrollton, IL

    Dixon, IL

    Effingham, IL

    Galena, IL

    Lacon, IL

    Lawrenceville, IL

    Peru, IL

    Pontiac, IL

    Union, IL

    Boonville, IN

    Plymouth, IN

    Salem, IN

    Vincennes, IN

    Arkansas City, KS

    Colby, KS

    Elkhart, KS

    Fredonia, KS

    Hiawatha, KS

    Highland, KS

    Lindsborg, KS

    Winfield, KS

    Alpena, MI

    Caspian, MI

    Cass City, MI

    Charlotte, MI

    Coloma, MI

    Escanaba, MI

    Grand Haven, MI

    Lake City, MI

    Milford, MI

    Port Huron, MI

    Ray, MI

    Three Rivers, MI

    Doniphan, MO

    Madden, MO

    Park Hills, MO

    West Plains, MO

    Auburn, NE

    Cozad, NE

    Fairmont, NE

    Harrisburg, NE

    Kidron, OH

    McArthur, OH

    Paulding, OH

    St. Paris, OH

    Astoria, OR

    Grants Pass, OR

    Heppner, OR

    Milton-Freewater, OR

    Moro, OR

    Newport, OR

    North Bend, OR

    Philomath, OR

    Prineville, OR

    Brownsville, TN

    Butler, TN

    Clifton, TN

    Greenville, TN

    Castle Dale, UT

    Delta, UT

    Ephraim, UT

    Heber City, UT

    Kanab, UT

    Monticello, UT

    Payson, UT

    Vernal, UT

    Wellsville, UT

    Culpeper, VA

    Lancaster, VA

    Pulaski, VA

    Bremerton, WA

    Dayton, WA

    Goldendale WA

    Ilwaco, WA

    Metaline Falls, WA

    Redmond, WA

    Vancouver, WA

    Westport, WA

    Elkins, WV

    Lewisburg, WV

    Mannington, WV

    Point Pleasant, WV

    Ripley, WV

    Romney, WV

    Sutton, WV

    Weston, WV

    Wheeling, WV

                                lewis and clark
        Question. As you are aware, the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark
    expedition is fast approaching. What is the Smithsonian doing to
    commemorate the event? Are any events or programs planned to occur at
    locations along the Lewis and Clark trail?
        Answer. The Missouri Historical Society (MHS) is planning a major
    exhibition to open in St. Louis in January 2004 with loans of up to
    1,000 objects from collections nationwide, and expects to share it with
    up to five museums across the country. Several Smithsonian curators and
    staff members are consulting on content and presentation. SITES is in
    the earliest stages of discussions with the MHS to develop a smaller
    version of the exhibition that can be shown at locations along the
    Lewis and Clark trail.
        The National Museum of Natural History's (NMNH) Natural Partners
    Program is developing several national educational outreach projects
    using the Lewis and Clark theme. These projects will allow students and
    teachers to learn about the Lewis and Clark expedition by incorporating
    object-based learning utilizing the Smithsonian's collections. Several
    of these projects will involve a web site which will contain elaborate
    databases, curriculum, learning games, and project ideas. All of these
    projects will show how scientists conduct their research. The projects
    are as follows:
        Digital Collections Database.--Natural Partners will be digitally
    recreating the natural history specimens, tools, weapons, instruments
    and other objects documented in the Lewis and Clark journals. They will
    develop an access and use strategy of the combined digital collections
    to maximize their value as a research and educational database for
    school children, teachers and scholars. The digitization project will
    be launched in 2002 to coincide with the Lewis and Clark 200th
    anniversary.
        Mammals in the Schools.--Mammals in the Schools will bring mammal
    specimens to the classroom. This project will provide object-based
    learning activities based on the mammals that Lewis and Clark
    encountered on their expedition. Mammals in the Schools will also be
    launched in 2002.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. Please describe the extent of the Smithsonian's
    collection related to the history and development of the movie
    industry, particularly California's contribution to this industry.
        Answer. The Photographic History Collection (PHC) in the National
    Museum of American History (NMAH) focuses on the professional and
    amateur developments in the history of the science, technology and art
    of photography. In 1896, the unit was established by the Smithsonian's
    first official photographer, Thomas Smillie. Because PHC arose out of
    the photography-producing unit of the Smithsonian, there has been a
    strong apparatus, process and technological interest in its 100+ years
    of collecting. PHC preserves approximately 150,000 images and 10,000
    pieces of still and moving picture apparatus. The objects in the early
    motion picture apparatus collection in PHC are the roots of today's
    film industry.
        The motion picture apparatus collection in PHC consists of
    approximately 1000 objects of which some 300 pieces (cameras,
    projectors, accessories and patent models) are pre-cinema and early
    motion picture (1790-1915). Films were transferred to the Archives
    Center, NMAH and the Motion Picture Branch at the Library of Congress.
        The question regarding California's contribution to the movie
    industry is more fully answered by the professional historians in
    California, like Herb Farmer at the UCLA archives. The Smithsonian
    recognizes this important history and will continue to work
    collaboratively with places like UCLA to ensure that the Institution's
    collections and expertise reach the broadest possible public.
        Question. The spring 1998 issue of Sixteen Frames, the Journal of
    the Movie Machine Society, reports that the Smithsonian has an
    extensive collection of early American movie apparatus which he
    describes as ``valuable treasures, valuable because these machines so
    eloquently speak the language of American technological thinking. In
    them we find shadows of the long gone men who conceived and built them.
    Some of these treasures have not been seen for years.'' The article
    notes that the public does not have access to this collection in that
    there have been no exhibits.
        What are the plans for preserving this collection?
        Answer. The importance of the pre-cinema and early motion picture
    apparatus collection has re-emerged thanks to the recent efforts of
    John Hiller, a long-time Smithsonian staff member, who has been
    detailed part-time to PHC. Hiller, a California native, and an
    experienced and talented Smithsonian cameraman, has spent the last year
    and a half cataloging, describing and researching the collection. This
    work has resulted in a large database, with images, that will be mapped
    to the museum-wide collection information system database. Eventually
    this database will be available within the Museum and on the World Wide
    Web.
        One of the benefits of Hiller's work has been his networking with
    motion picture and magic lantern societies, connecting with film
    historians and writing articles indicating to researchers, historians,
    scholars, film professionals and students that this collection exists
    and is available for study. The spring 2000 issue of the History of
    Photography Journal, the field's most prestigious and widely read
    periodical, has devoted an entire issue to PHC. Among the articles is
    one by Hiller. His article contextualizes the motion picture apparatus
    collection and its relationship to the rest of the collection.
        The Museum's early motion picture apparatus is stored off-site at
    the Museum Support Center in Suitland, MD with the rest of PHC's
    equipment collection. Over the last seven years, the Museum spent
    considerable time and energy rehousing and cataloging every PHC object
    that went to the Suitland.
        Question. Are there plans to expand it?
        Answer. PHC actively collects in the history of early motion
    pictures as donation and purchase opportunities arise.
        Question. Are there plans to prepare an exhibit for the public or
    otherwise provide the public an opportunity to view the collection and
    learn about the early years of the industry?
        Answer. Like many of the collecting units at the Smithsonian, we no
    longer have a specific gallery in the Museum for permanent exhibitions.
    The Hall of Photography was disassembled in 1992. Those objects and
    others are made available as requested. As we move further into the
    digital age, more of the objects will be publicly accessible. In 1995,
    the Museum curated a History-in-the-News showcase, Magic Lanterns Magic
    Mirrors: A Centennial Salute to Cinema. The virtual exhibition can be
    viewed on the NMAH web site at: http://www.si.edu/nmah/ve/cinema/
    cinema.html. There are no current plans for a specific early motion
    picture exhibition. Creating such an exhibition would require extensive
    outside funding. However, the National Museum of American History is
    crafting the exhibition, ``New Views into the Collections'' in which
    PHC objects will be included. The Museum will continue to consider
    loaning objects to appropriate educational institutions for their
    exhibitions. PHC has also made objects available at several conferences
    and lectures for lecture attendees and conference members to view,
    study and discuss. PHC stafff requently answer individual inquiries
    about motion picture apparatus and are amenable to taking researchers,
    scholars, museum personnel and others to visit off-site storage.
        Question. Is there a curator for this collection?
        Answer. The Photographic History Collection department staff
    currently consists of three full-time staffwith the Curator of Graphic
    Arts as Acting Curator of Photography.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gorton. The subcommittee will stand in recess until
    2 p.m., Thursday, March 18, when we will receive testimony from
    Hon. Bill Richardson of the Department of Energy, on energy
    conservation, fossil energy research and development, and other
    DOE programs.
        [Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., Tuesday, March 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. Thursday,
    March 18.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Campbell, and Byrd.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF ENERGY
    ACCOMPANIED BY DAN REICHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton. We will start this hearing. I certainly
    want to welcome you, Mr. Secretary. This is your first
    appearance before this subcommittee, though you do spend a fair
    amount of time up here before one committee or another.
        Your fiscal year 2000 budget request for programs under
    this subcommittee's jurisdiction is a mixed bag. On the one
    hand, there is a 33-percent increase for the Energy
    Conservation Program; while a $256 million deferral is
    requested for Clean Coal Technology; a 5-percent decrease in
    the Fossil Energy R&D Program; and no funds for the Naval
    Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.
        Each of these requests raises questions that we will get to
    later in the hearing. For now, I would like just to put the
    President's request in its proper context, given where I think
    we are heading in this budget.
        The budget request, as a whole, employs a variety of new
    taxes, fees, and accounting gimmicks to reach a total
    discretionary spending level that is $25 billion above the
    fiscal year 2000 statutory discretionary cap enacted in 1997.
        Very few of the proposals that produce this $25 billion in
    additional spending will be enacted by this Congress, and
    virtually none of that amount is likely to be available to the
    Appropriations Committee when it begins to work on the bill for
    the year 2000.
        The Interior Subcommittee's pro-rata share of this $25
    billion would be about $625 million, which would eliminate a
    large share of the $1 billion increase requested by the
    President for Interior bill programs.
        We are, however, likely to take far more than a pro-rata
    share of this reduction, as it is the intention of the
    Republican leadership to make increases in education and
    defense spending high priorities within the existing caps.
        This ultimately means the subcommittee will be fortunate to
    so much as maintain the fiscal year 1999 funding levels. It is
    also worth noting that the increases in pay costs for federal
    workers and GSA rental rates, items over which this
    subcommittee has very little control, will amount to more than
    $290 million for the Interior bill agencies in fiscal year
    2000.
        These costs must either be funded or absorbed by programs.
    While we will continue to challenge agencies to find ways to
    deliver programs more efficiently, in the context of flat or
    reduced subcommittee allocations, these mandatory cost
    increases leave no room for large program increases, such as
    those contemplated in the President's request for energy
    conservation programs.
        In this environment, Mr. Secretary, we will need your
    assistance and that of your staff in setting priorities. We
    will be compelled to make tough choices, but I firmly believe
    we will make better choices if we have the benefit of your
    expertise and candor.
        Senator Byrd is now here. And Mr. Secretary, I must confess
    to you that right now there is a Kosovo briefing going on
    upstairs in the Capitol. There are two rollcall votes on the
    floor of the Senate, set for approximately 2:30. I am a member
    of the Budget Committee. We will have three votes sometime
    shortly after that.
        So, as a practical matter, I think we have got 30 minutes
    for your statement and for questions. That does not reflect the
    importance of what you have to say or our view of the
    importance of the programs that you are backing here.
        And I, once again, reiterate that we are really going to
    want your help and cooperation as we go through a difficult
    year, and to tell you that from my own personal point of view,
    your response to my requests, since you have been confirmed as
    Secretary, have been thoughtful and--and really reasonably
    affirmative. And I certainly thank you for that and have
    enjoyed our relationship.
        Given our short period of time, Senator Campbell, I would--
    --

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, we have a
    very short period of time. And I think what I will do is submit
    my questions for the Secretary in writing.
        I just have to say, I am happy to see that he is here and
    healed up pretty well since yesterday's being a witness in
    front of our joint committee. But I did want to say, since I
    will also have to leave, that I have some real concerns.
        I am--I--my friend from New Mexico, by the way, Mr.
    Chairman, we--we voted on the southwest Colorado when I was in
    the House side serving with him on the Interior Committee. He
    was from north New Mexico. And so, we spent a lot of time
    together. And he is very, very knowledgeable about all of the
    things we face out there.
        Today, I would hope that--even though it is not perhaps
    directly in your testimony, that you would reassure us that you
    are absolutely and firmly committed to getting that annum
    sublata done.
        And second, we obviously have this problem with Rocky Flats
    in our State. And I would--he has made it a priority. I think
    that is reflected in the Administration's budget this time, but
    I am concerned with one thing that I am hearing through the
    DOE, that they are talking about building temporary facilities,
    like tents, to store some materials that are radioactive, some
    hazardous, called TRUW or Transuranic Waste. And I want him to
    assure us that that is not going to prolong the closing in
    2006. And that, in fact, it is temporary.
        And also, I understand the DOE is talking about adding more
    work to Rocky Flats. And I cannot understand how you are going
    to put more work into Rocky Flats and still be committed to
    closing it by 2006.
        But I just wanted him to know that I am going to explore
    some language to put in this committee's bill that would
    require that if those temporary facilities are built here, that
    they are safe, they are temporary, and in fact, they will not
    add to the timing of the closures.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, if I have the time, I might
    ask a few questions later, but I would ask you--the Secretary
    to send his answers back to us if we do not get back to him.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, you, obviously, are very
    welcome here. As you know, we have rollcalls at--votes at 2:30,
    and then a Budget Committee Markup.
        Senator Byrd. Yes.
        Senator Gorton. So, I think this is going to be a fairly
    short time with the Secretary, but we would be delighted to
    hear what you have to say, because your State is certainly
    affected by this budget.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Mr.
    Secretary. You are here to defend the President's budget
    proposal for some of these programs that are very vital to the
    nation. But I am not sure that this budget request is
    defensible.
        The President proposes sizable funding deferrals and
    reductions in the Clean Coal Technology Program and in fossil
    energy research and development, two of the most important
    programs in the Interior bill.
        These two programs are critical to the resolving of climate
    change issues in this country and also overseas, and can
    provide significant sales for U.S. companies abroad.
        In my opinion, the budget request of the Administration
    indicates a lack of understanding about the importance of these
    programs and a lack of cohesive energy and climate change
    policy. And it seems incredibly out of balance with the energy
    research and technology needs to move our country and the world
    into the 21st century.
        Now, taking a close look at Clean Coal Technologies, coal
    is an important, abundant, and cost-effective source of energy
    for our country and the world. And we have made great progress
    in developing technologies for burning coal more cleanly and
    efficiently. But there is more important work to be done.
        About $385 million in program obligations of the original
    plan remain to be funded. Yet the President's budget request
    for fiscal year 2000 proposes a huge deferral of $256 million.
        Does not this deferral and the companion threat of no
    future funding place the program in jeopardy? Deferral sounds
    so harmless. Well, we are just delaying that. Just putting it
    off. You come back next year with your appropriations for it.
    But it is difficult to come back next year and get the
    appropriations, because we have to find offsets next year for
    any appropriations we add.
        So, we make for ourselves real problems for the next go
    around, when we have these deferrals.

                             CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

        So, what assurances can you offer that the Clean Coal
    Technology funds proposed for deferral in the President's
    fiscal year 2000 budget will ever be made available to complete
    the current obligations of the Clean Coal Technology Program?
        Senator Gorton. OK. I think we better give you your--your
    opportunity at this point. And if you would like to answer that
    question as part of your opening statement----

                   SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON

        Secretary Richardson. First of all, I am delighted to
    testify before you and this committee, and not on China.
        Second----
        Senator Gorton. Good thinking.

                               prepared statement

        Secretary Richardson I will also not give a 30-minute
    opening statement, which I had.
        Senator Gorton. We'll include that in the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Richardson
        Mr. Chairman, and Senators, it's my pleasure to be with you to
    discuss the Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 2000.
        Thank you for your support in helping ensure that the Department of
    Energy continues succeeding in its missions which are crucial to
    America's future. I know that several of you have major DOE facilities
    in your States and you work closely with our people. In return, we want
    to be good neighbors to you. I plan to spend a lot of time ``on the
    ground'' at these sites. I've already visited more than 25 of our sites
    since coming to the Department this past August. I look forward to
    working closely with you to maximize the value of DOE's presence in
    your States.
        I knew I was taking on an important challenge by coming to the
    Department. For several years now, DOE has been asked to do more for
    the nation while using fewer resources. Our staff has been cut by 25
    percent in less than four years while its responsibilities have grown.
    Also, quite frankly, the Department needs a thorough examination and
    infusion of the same pioneering spirit that enabled it and its
    predecessor agencies to achieve spectacular successes and to benefit
    our nation immensely. As I view DOE today, it doesn't need rebuilding,
    but I think its batteries need a good recharging. That's where I see my
    role. I'm here to help provide a new perspective to the Department and
    to help make it one of our best cabinet agencies.
            science, security and energy: powering the 21st century
        In this year's State of the Union message, the President set a bold
    agenda to lead our nation in meeting the challenges of the 21st
    Century. The Department's capabilities place it at the forefront of
    America's technological advance into the next millennium. This budget
    will enable our people to use DOE's capabilities in science, security
    and energy to power the 21st Century with American ingenuity,
    competitiveness, and technological breakthroughs that will dramatically
    improve our quality of life.
        The President's agenda and budget build on a record of
    accomplishment. For example, just five of the technologies and
    innovations developed through this Committee's funding are responsible
    for over $33 billion in net savings to consumers and businesses--that
    is, energy savings less any additional costs of the associated
    efficiency improvements. The five innovations are: the flame retention
    head oil burner, the efficient refrigerator compressor, building design
    software [DOE-2], the electronic fluorescent lamp ballast, and advanced
    window coatings. All were developed by DOE, and are successful
    commercial products, today holding market shares from 15 to 100
    percent. DOE's total cost to develop these technologies was less than
    $30 million. Our success formula seeks to improve technologies and
    methods and to work with industry, consumer groups, and other
    organizations to accelerate market acceptance of those improvements.
        Another example of the value of federal and private sector
    partnerships in research and development is the Partnership for a New
    Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). DOE is cost-sharing with private
    industry to develop a smarter, smaller, less expensive electric power
    system for the ``car of the future.'' They've already shrunk this
    system from the size of a large suitcase to smaller than a shoe box.
    Now they're working to cut its $10,000 cost to less than $500.
        Our environment is cleaner today than at any time in the past
    quarter century. Still, global climate change poses major environmental
    challenges for the entire world. Our efforts at Kyoto helped negotiate
    an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an
    environmentally strong and economically sound way. Research and
    development, and accelerated use of energy efficient and clean energy
    technologies are major components of the President's Climate Change
    Technology Initiative (CCTI). Even without global climate change, these
    investments are wise national policy, increasing our energy security,
    improving our air quality, and strengthening our national economic
    competitiveness. Our budget seeks to increase support for CCTI programs
    by about 25 percent. Included among this broad and balanced R&D
    portfolio are: clean, advanced fossil energy technologies; carbon
    sequestration; and, energy efficiency applications in the building,
    industry, and transportation sectors.
        We are requesting a 33.4 percent increase for Energy Conservation.
    Programs benefitting the most are in the Building Technology,
    Transportation and Industrial sectors, and the Federal Energy
    Management Program, which will enable us to pursue our ambitious goals
    of: cutting energy use in new homes 50 percent by 2010; lowering power
    bills for America's most energy intensive industries, making them even
    more competitive internationally; continuing cuts in federal energy use
    so by 2005, it's reduced by 30 percent from its 1985 level;
    weatherizing nearly 80,000 homes to make winters warmer and summers
    cooler for low-income residents, while lowering utility bills; and,
    providing ways to cut school energy costs through ``Energy Smart
    Schools''.
        The U.S. is expected to remain dependent on fossil fuels for about
    85 percent of its energy consumption for at least the next 20 years.
    One of the Department's key goals is to ensure that economic benefits
    from low-priced fossil fuels do not come with unacceptable
    environmental costs or energy security risks. Natural gas can play a
    key role in slowing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and be a
    bridge to a renewable energy future. The programs in this budget
    include a portfolio of activities designed to accomplish this.
        Preserving America's energy security is among the Department's
    chief responsibilities, and one which this Committee has worked hard to
    ensure. Today's world-wide, near-record-low oil prices have adversely
    affected domestic oil production, as well as increased U.S. oil
    consumption, resulting in greater dependency on imported oil. In fact,
    as the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels, the U.S. imported
    about half its 1998 daily oil consumption of 18.7 million barrels.
        The 1973 oil embargo pointed out how vulnerable we had become to
    supply disruptions in foreign oil. Since then, we've diversified our
    suppliers and prepared for unexpected supply disruptions. In fact, with
    this Committee's help, we've stored 561 million barrels in the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). We're requesting $164.0 million to
    operate the SPR in fiscal year 2000, without having to rely on the sale
    of oil. As you know, we are planning to partially refill the SPR with
    federal royalty oil from the Central Gulf of Mexico, which I announced
    two weeks ago. In a cooperative transfer from the Department of
    Interior, we plan to replace about 28 million barrels which were sold
    in fiscal year 1996 and 1997, largely for deficit reduction purposes. I
    feel it makes good business sense to take advantage of today's low oil
    prices to rebuild our reserves. At the same time, we're enhancing our
    national energy security, increasing our strategic assets, and getting
    a very good deal for the American taxpayer. This plan would enable the
    government to add oil to the SPR without an appropriation or any budget
    offsets.
        To concentrate its resources on the most pressing problems, the
    Department's Fossil Energy program has integrated its R&D activities in
    petroleum and natural gas to maximize advantages of technologies that
    benefit both oil and gas production. Examples of this shared R&D
    include advanced seismic technologies, new drilling systems, and more
    cost-effective environmental compliance options. This work could yield
    an extra one million barrels of oil per day and more than two trillion
    additional cubic feet per year of domestic gas production by 2010.
    These expected DOE and industry breakthroughs could ultimately save the
    oil and gas industry $16 billion in environmental compliance costs by
    2010.
                             fy 2000 budget request
        The Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request, before the
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, proposes
    funding of $1.229 billion, a 1.9 percent reduction, or $23.7 million
    below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The reduction in budget
    authority is the result of an increased deferral of Clean Coal
    Technology funding, from $40.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to $256.0
    million in fiscal year 2000, and the ability to fund the required $21.2
    million operating budget of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve
    account entirely from prior year balances. A total of $375.0 million is
    proposed for Fossil Energy R&D, offset by $11.0 million in prior year
    balances.
        Within the total request, we are proposing $837.5 million for
    Energy Conservation; a 2.4 percent increase, to $164 million, for the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and an 11.0 percent increase, to $2.0
    million, for Economic Regulation activities. The request for the Energy
    Information Administration rises by 3.0 percent, to $72.6 million.
    Following are highlights of some of the specific activities we are
    proposing for fiscal year 2000.
                               energy efficiency
        The Energy Efficiency programs funded by this Subcommittee improve
    fuel economy of automobiles and other vehicles, increase productivity
    of the nation's most energy-intensive and polluting industries, and
    improve energy efficiency of buildings and appliances. The fiscal year
    2000 budget requests $837.5 million for the Department's Energy
    Conservation programs, an increase of $209.8 million over the fiscal
    year 1999 level. An amendment to the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution
    and Restitution Act, contained in the Omnibus Consolidated and
    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999, transferred
    most of the refined product funds held in escrow for payment of refund
    claims to EE for use in Energy Conservation programs in fiscal year
    1999. As a result, there will be no PODRA funds used for funding EE
    during fiscal year 2000.
        Transportation economies for the 21st Century.--The U.S.
    transportation sector depends on oil for 97 percent of its fuel
    requirements. The Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) funds
    research, development and deployment of technologies that can
    significantly alter current trends in energy usage. Developing and
    commercializing these innovative technologies and alternative fuels is
    the nation's best strategy for diversifying our use of fuels and
    dramatically reducing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions
    from the transportation sector. The DOE is a leader in the government's
    Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) which focuses on
    significantly improving automobile energy efficiency and reducing
    emissions. The fiscal year 2000 PNGV request of $143.1 million, a $15.0
    million increase, will focus on key component technologies, including
    fuel cells, advanced direct-injection engines, exhaust control,
    advanced batteries, and electronic power controllers. An increase of
    $2.8 million in the Clean Cities program, providing $10.7 million for
    fiscal year 2000, will advance infrastructure development to speed the
    deployment of alternative fuels in over 65 communities.
        Industrial energy technologies.--Industry consumes over one-third
    of the energy delivered in the U.S. and spends tens of billions of
    dollars annually for pollution abatement and control. Nine industries
    account for 75 percent of the energy used in manufacturing: forest
    products, steel, aluminum, metal-casting, chemicals, petroleum
    refining, agriculture, mining and glass. These industries also account
    for over 80 percent of pollutant emissions and over 90 percent of the
    waste produced by U.S. manufacturing. The Office of Industrial
    Technologies focuses on developing innovative technologies to assist
    the nation's most energy-intensive industries to become more resource
    efficient and economically competitive, and pollute less. The budget
    requests $171.0 million for the Industries of the Future program. This
    amount reflects a reduced requirement of $21.0 million in the Turbine
    program, which has reached a stage where less government funding is
    needed. Thus, the $171.0 million request actually represents an
    increase in all the remaining Industries programs.
        Improved energy efficiency for building technologies.--America's
    homes and offices consume $232.0 billion worth of energy each year.
    Heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and equipment account for
    over one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The Department is
    requesting $335.9 million for the Office of Building Technology, State
    and Community Programs (BTS), including $88.2 million for Building
    Research and Standards, $41.4 million for Building Technology
    Assistance--non grants, and $154.0 million for the Weatherization
    Assistance Program and $37 million for the State Energy Program. The
    budget allows the Department to implement technology roadmaps and
    provide the next generation of energy-efficient, environment-friendly
    technologies industry requires.
        Federal Energy Management Program.--As America's largest energy
    customer, the Federal Government spends $8 billion each year on energy
    for its facilities and operations. The Federal Energy Management
    Program (FEMP) helps federal agencies identify, finance, and implement
    energy efficiency improvements for their facilities. This saves money
    for U.S. taxpayers through reduced federal energy spending. The FEMP
    request for fiscal year 2000 is $31.9 million, an increase of $8.1
    million over fiscal year 1999.
        Management Improvements.--During the past year, the Department of
    Energy has intensified its efforts to increase competition, achieve
    results-oriented quality and performance program measures, and increase
    efficiencies in management of construction. As part of these efforts,
    the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has been focusing
    on resolving long-standing management issues to increase dividends from
    its investments in new energy technologies. Specific management reforms
    accomplished this past year, and new initiatives, include:
        Strategic Planning for Results and Technology Roadmaps.--EERE is
    developing a results-oriented strategic plan, building on technology
    roadmaps being developed, and focusing on procurement and business
    strategies.
        Increasing Competition and Refining Merit Review Processes.--EERE
    is increasing funds competitively awarded, by issuing both targeted and
    broad-based solicitations for research, development, and demonstration
    proposals, and for information dissemination and outreach. The Broad-
    Based Solicitation for Information Dissemination and Outreach, issued
    in December, 1998, has attracted more than 400 applications. We are
    convinced it will bring many new, high quality participants, including
    leading universities and researchers, into DOE's energy-efficiency
    community. Also, in 1998, the Department completed the competition for
    its billion-dollar management and operating contract for the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory in record time and with an improved focus
    on mission results.
        Managing Smarter.--EERE has reduced its uncosted balances for
    Energy Conservation Research and Development programs by 38 percent
    between the beginning of fiscal year 1996 and the beginning of fiscal
    year 1999. It also has increased the proportion of funding for mission
    functions and reduced the proportion for support costs.
        Strengthening Program Integration.--Recognizing solutions to energy
    challenges often cross sector lines, EERE is increasing integration
    across technologies and across their applications. Two leading examples
    are Bioenergy and the EnergySmart Schools Initiative.
        Leveraging Federal Investments by Expanding Partnerships with
    Federal, State and Other Entities.--EERE is working closely with
    national laboratories, businesses, universities, nonprofit
    organizations, and the Congress to establish R&D priorities, conduct
    high-priority research, facilitate private-sector technology
    deployment, and disseminate information. Their EERE Regional Support
    Offices are strengthening delivery of services at State and local
    levels.
        Increasing Emphasis on Project Management.--As EERE increases its
    role in demonstration projects, it will strengthen its capabilities in
    project management of costs, schedules, and performance.
        Emphasizing Program Evaluation and Continuous Improvement.--EERE
    has discontinued activities that have not met predetermined goals and
    will continue to modify its strategies based on results from its
    program analysis and evaluation.
                     fossil energy research and development
        The fiscal year 2000 request for Fossil Energy Research and
    Development is $375.0 million, including $11.0 million from prior year
    balances for a net fiscal year 2000 request of $364.0 million. This
    level continues investments in advanced technological concepts, such as
    the capture and sequestration of CO2, and development of
    advanced, highly efficient, power generation and fuel producing
    technologies that together could reduce, or perhaps nearly eliminate,
    carbon emissions from fossil fuel facilities. In a world nearly 90
    percent dependent on fossil fuels, development of new technologies
    along these lines will help maintain strong economic growth while
    meeting existing and new environmental goals.
        The Department's fiscal year 2000 Natural Gas and Petroleum
    programs continue to emphasize technology transfer, especially to
    independent producers that make up an increasingly large share of the
    domestic oil and gas industry. The fiscal year 2000 program also
    includes support for follow-on advanced oil recovery projects,
    especially where prior field tests have shown that such projects could
    be the difference in keeping oil flowing in fields that otherwise would
    be abandoned.
        Coal.--The fiscal year 2000 request for advanced coal-related R&D
    technologies is $122.4 million, which is basically the same as fiscal
    year 1999. The program will begin to couple progress made to date in
    advanced gasification and combustion systems, coal conversion, and
    environmental controls, with potentially revolutionary approaches to
    carbon sequestration, in a concept called the ``Vision 21 Powerplex.''
    Its goal is to develop a set of advanced technology modules that could
    be configured into a new class of fuel-flexible facilities for both
    central and distributed energy production in the 2010-2030 time frame.
    These new facilities would be capable of co-producing electric power,
    process heat, and high value fuels and chemicals at peak efficiencies
    with virtually no emissions of air pollutants. The $28.9 million for
    the Vision 21 concept could ultimately be combined with the $9.1
    million in fiscal year 2000 funding elsewhere in the FE R&D budget for
    carbon sequestration, to produce a class of fossil fuel-based energy
    complexes with virtually no environmental impacts outside of their
    physical ``footprints.'' Work also continues on characterizing and
    reducing pollutants such as particulates (PM2.5), air toxics, and
    NOX from existing powerplants.
        Petroleum.--The fiscal year 2000 request for Oil Technology
    activities is $50.2 million, an increase from the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation of $48.6 million. The majority of the Department's Oil
    Technology program continues to focus on providing independent
    producers with advances that can keep oil flowing from U.S. reservoirs
    that would likely be abandoned with conventional technology. In the
    fiscal year 2000 budget, funding for a preferred ``Petroleum Upstream
    Management Practices'' (PUMP) program will be initiated, focusing on
    best management practices, data management, and effective environmental
    compliance.
        Gas.--The fiscal year 2000 request for gas-related R&D is $105.3
    million. The supply portion of the Gas budget, $25.9 million, will
    continue to focus on advanced technologies that can locate and produce
    gas that otherwise would be bypassed or unmarketable. In addition, a
    small $2.0 million R&D program in methane hydrates is being initiated
    with the long-term goal of converting the large potential gas hydrate
    resource (estimated at up to 200,000 trillion cubic feet, or over one
    hundred times the amount of US conventional gas resource) into economic
    gas reserves. The gas budget also continues to support two high-
    priority power generation technologies--High Efficiency Gas Turbines,
    and Advanced Fuel Cells--that could enhance the future use of natural
    gas, as well as ultimately contribute to higher-efficiency coal-based
    power generation. In the power generation Advanced Gas Turbine program,
    DOE is requesting $41.8 million, which will enable it to complete full-
    scale component/subsystem testing and engine manufacturing, and begin
    full speed prototype testing of a new class of gas turbines with
    unprecedented efficiency and environmental performance. DOE is
    requesting $37.6 million for the Fuel Cell program in fiscal year 2000,
    to continue R&D to reduce costs and improve performance for market-
    ready systems early in the next decade. In fiscal year 2000, the
    program will begin testing of the first market prototype solid oxide
    fuel cell at commercial sites for distributed power applications. In
    addition, $5.0 million of fuel cell activity is included in the Vision
    21 activity in the Coal program.
                          strategic petroleum reserve
        The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) remains a crucial element of
    our national energy security policy. The fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for SPR operations and maintenance is $159.0 million, a 1
    percent reduction from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation and a 44
    percent reduction from fiscal year 1996's peak level of $284.1 million.
    These reductions reflect the successful completion in fiscal year 2000
    of the Life Extension Program and Weeks Island Decommissioning, as well
    as the completion of treatment for gas-in-oil by the end of the first
    quarter fiscal year 1998. This 1 percent decrease reflects the
    resumption of post Life Extension Program full standby operations and
    maintenance activities offset by the reduction in funding for the Life
    Extension Program. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the SPR
    Petroleum Account is $5.0 million. At the end of fiscal year 1998, the
    account's remaining balance of $33 million was capable of supporting
    approximately 55 percent of a full SPR emergency drawdown for a six-
    month period. This addition assures the capability to sustain drawdown
    operations for close to four months of the six-month performance
    criteria.
        Although the budget does not request funding for oil acquisition,
    the Administration has determined that the very low price of oil makes
    this an ideal time to replace the oil that was sold during 1996 and
    1997 for budget balancing purposes. In addition to the transfer of 28
    million barrels of federal royalty oil from the Department of Interior,
    I have directed that the remaining unutilized capacity of the SPR be
    offered for private storage, thereby adding oil to the SPR.
                             clean coal technology
        The fiscal year 2000 budget reflects a net amount of $246.0 million
    of previously appropriated budget authority be deferred until fiscal
    year 2001 and beyond. The proposed deferral of funds reflects schedule
    delays, primarily resulting from project restructuring activities. The
    40 active projects have a total cost of $5.7 billion, of which DOE has
    committed $1.9 billion. At the end of fiscal year 2000, 29 projects are
    expected to be completed and one additional project is expected to
    complete operation and begin preparing final reports. Four projects are
    expected to be in operation, three projects in construction, and three
    projects in design. At the end of fiscal year 2000, two projects are
    expected to have outstanding obligation commitments. In fiscal year
    2000, the Clean Coal Program will complete the demonstration of Pinion
    Pine, the third integrated gasification combined cycle project, using
    air-blown gasification and hot gas cleanup for improved thermal
    efficiency; and continued operations of the Polk project in order to
    establish the engineering foundation leading to a new generation of 60
    percent efficient powerplants.
                naval petroleum reserves and oil shale reserves
        The fiscal year 2000 budget of $21.24 million is to be funded
    entirely from prior year balances. No new funds are being requested for
    fiscal year 2000. During the fiscal year, ongoing activities will be
    funded from prior year balances which resulted, in large part, from
    terminating operations at NPR-1 during fiscal year 1998. Fiscal year
    2000 ongoing activities include the continued operation of the Teapot
    Dome Oilfield, the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center,
    environmental remediation activities at Teapot Dome, environmental and
    cultural resource assessments at NPR-1, with some remediation activity
    anticipated, finalization of NPR-1 equity shares with Chevron, and
    continued oversight of the NPR-2 property and leases.
        Elk Hills School Lands Fund.--Section 3415 of Public Law 104-106
    provides for the settlement of longstanding claims to certain Elk Hills
    lands by the State of California. Under the terms of the settlement, a
    contingency fund has been established in the Treasury for payment of
    nine percent of the net sales proceeds generated from the divestment of
    Elk Hills over a seven-year period. Provided funds are appropriated
    annually, the Department will pay the State of California Teachers'
    Retirement Fund $36.0 million each year for five years which began in
    fiscal year 1999. Any remaining balance due after the five years shall
    be paid in two equal installments in years six and seven unless the
    seventh payment is deferred due to delay in the equity finalization
    process. For fiscal year 2000, the Department is requesting $36.0
    million for the second payment to the State of California Teachers'
    Retirement Fund.
        The Office of Fossil Energy has modified its research and
    development program significantly through the use of the strategic
    planning process and the development of detailed program plans and road
    maps often done in conjunction with the industrial and technical
    communities as well as other portions of the Department.
        Field operations have been successfully consolidated into the
    Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) which is now fully operational.
    In addition, the privatization of the National Institute of Petroleum
    and Energy Research (NIPER) has been recently completed, reducing the
    costs of conducting oil research and increasing the amounts of funding
    for competitive research.
        With the sale of the giant Elk Hills oil field in California, we
    have begun to significantly reduce the Federal presence in competition
    with the oil industry. The Oil Shale Reserve in Colorado has been
    transferred to the Department of the Interior for leasing and other
    reserves will be transferred or closed in the next several years.
                       energy information administration
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request is $72.6 million which will
    fund EIA data and analysis activities supporting issues related to
    energy use. This level will enable EIA to produce approximately 240
    reports and analyses covering a wide variety of energy issues, respond
    to about 300,000 inquiries and requests for energy information,
    overhaul their energy consumption surveys and continue overhaul of
    their electricity and natural gas surveys and data systems. The
    following programs are included: efficiency and renewable data
    collection and analysis; end-use energy consumption surveys; greenhouse
    gas data collection studies; mid-term energy demand modeling; and
    integrated end-use energy data compilation.
                              economic regulation
        The budget request of $2.0 million, for the Office of Hearings and
    Appeals (OHA), is for processing applications for refunds and for
    related activities arising from the regulatory program initiated under
    the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973. OHA will transfer a
    portion of the money collected by the Department with respect to crude
    oil price violations to the Treasury Department for deficit reduction.
                                   conclusion
        The Department of Energy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000
    will provide our scientists and engineers with the tools, facilities
    and processes to help lead this nation into the new millennium. The
    technological breakthroughs which lie ahead will provide improvements
    to the quality of life of all Americans. With your continued support,
    the Department of Energy will produce the science, security and energy
    to power this nation in the 21st Century.

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS

        Secretary Richardson. I will go straight into answering
    questions, if that is agreeable to you.
        Senator Gorton. All right. Why don't you answer Senator
    Byrd's question, first----
        Secretary Richardson. Yes; I will.
        Senator Gorton [continuing]. Since he just presented it to
    you.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator Byrd, I do not want you to
    take a signal on the deferral that we are not committed to the
    Clean Coal Technology Projects. The funding being deferred is
    not needed until fiscal year 2001, and later for the two
    remaining projects; one in Illinois and one in Utah, that are
    not fully funded together.
        We have recently approved restructuring and design
    extensions for both of these projects for purposes such as
    obtaining environmental permits. Both projects have adequate
    funding to complete these tasks. We have funded 38 out of the
    40 projects that I believe are out there.
        I want to commit to you, Senator--I know that you care a
    lot about coal--that we will develop cleaner, more efficient
    coal technology. I want you to know that I am committed to deal
    with being more positive and generous toward coal, both in the
    budget and in terms of our policies.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, are we asking questions at this
    point or not?
        Senator Gorton. We are. The Secretary sort of just put his
    opening statement on the record, because we only have a few
    more minutes. Would you like a follow-up question on that?
        Senator Byrd. I would like.
        Senator Gorton. Go right ahead.

                     FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        Senator Byrd. Well, I am deeply troubled by the
    implications of this proposed deferral. It appears to be a
    clear indication that the Administration does not understand or
    appreciate the importance of fossil energy and fossil energy
    research.
        This budget proposal sends a signal to the industry and the
    power community that coal is not needed. The deferral, in
    essence, robs one proven and worthy program to pay for other
    increases included in the President's budget.
        The deferral means that the committee will be asked in the
    out years, to find replacement funding for the Clean Coal
    Technology Program. I look forward to working with you and
    other members of the committee to resolve this issue in a
    positive fashion, that leaves no doubt as to the importance of
    coal to our society.
        My follow-up question is this: Why does the President's
    budget include a decrease for fossil energy research? Most of
    the other energy programs show at least modest increases in the
    President's budget. But this program, which is so important to
    the energy stability and health of our nation, is decreased.
    Proposed funding for coal research is down and so is the
    proposed funding for natural gas research.
        Overall, the amount proposed in the President's budget
    request for fiscal year 2000 for the Fossil Energy Research and
    Development Program is $20 million less than was enacted for
    fiscal year 1999.
        Now, why is that?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, let me just say that I know
    you would have preferred a plus-up in the fossil energy budget,
    relative to the fiscal year 1999 level. I, too, wanted to do
    more for fossil energy, but the budget caps were too tight. We
    did win a victory with OMB, in that we were going to experience
    a deeper cut, but we have come very close to last year's
    request.
        The $364 million requested for fiscal year 2000 in fossil
    energy continues investments in technology, such as the capture
    and sequestration of carbon dioxide, development of advanced
    power generation and fuel producing technologies that could
    reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
        I also want you to look at the recent initiative, Senator,
    that I've done on oil and gas, that involve the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve, that involve making it easier to drill in
    federal lands, and that involve several other initiatives to
    help the oil and gas industry.
        We also need to consider the multi-billion dollar Clean
    Coal Technology Program, which has been successful over its
    lifetime. As I said, we got $50 million more than what was
    contained in the original passback from OMB.
        But Senator Byrd, I said to you that I was going to be a
    Secretary of Energy that would not turn his back on coal; that
    will do more for coal. I commit to you that when I have full
    control of my budget--in the next cycle, because, as you know,
    I came in September--that you should look at my coal research
    budget. And I think you will be pleased. But we will work with
    you to keep the monies in there, the projects going, and
    recognize the importance of coal in our future.
        Senator Byrd. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. And
    we will work together in this regard.
        I just point out, Mr. Chairman, that as I indicated
    earlier, most of the other energy programs show at least modest
    increases in the President's budget. But this program, this
    program which is so important, is decreased. And support for
    the program directly supports FETC. It creates jobs in West
    Virginia. It helps the energy economy of the State. And the
    President's budget for fiscal year 2000 takes the program back.
        We appropriated $384 million to the program for fiscal year
    1999. The President's budget takes it back to $364 million. And
    the DOE request to OMB for the program's fiscal year 2000
    budget, was $440 million. So, I want to give the Secretary
    credit for that, which would be an increase of $55 million
    above the enacted level.
        But anyhow, my time is consumed. I thank you, Mr.
    Secretary. Let us work together and see if we cannot do the
    right thing by coal, because it is going to be very, very
    important. And our Clean Coal Technology Programs are so
    important, if we think about global climate problems and
    change.
        Secretary Richardson. Well, Senator Byrd, you know you have
    persuaded me on that position.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

                    FEDERAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS

        Senator Gorton. One of the areas of endeavor in the
    department, that the department for many years has most
    fiercely defended, has been cooperative research and
    development leading to the actual use of new technologies in
    the market place.
        You talk about some of them in your written statement, but
    I'd like you, if you can, to give me two or three recent
    examples and tell me how, specifically, the department was
    involved; why it got involved in them; and why these advances
    would not have been made if we'd left it to the private sector
    alone.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, I will answer this question.
    The two that I would say to you is, one is the Partnership for
    a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), including support for the
    Northwest Alliance for Transportation Technology.
        This PNGV project, initiated in 1993, is a cost-shared
    partnership whose goal is to develop technologies in
    partnership with industry that would enable a family sedan to
    achieve 80 miles per gallon by the year 2004.
        We are working with industry to development technologies
    which improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions without
    sacrificing safety. These programs are the hybrid electric
    vehicles, fuel cells, improved engines, and lightweight
    materials. I saw a lot of these at the Detroit auto show.
        But I think one recent development in the lightweight
    materials is the establishment--and I know you are familiar
    with this--of the Northwest Alliance for Transportation
    Technology, which is a combination of industrial partners in
    the northwest United States brought together to improve
    American technology. And I know you have been a leader in this
    area.
        My Assistant Secretary, Dan Reicher, is the expert on this,
    but I think this is our best example. Dan, can you give
    another?
        Mr Reicher. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I have two things.
    One are the advanced industrial turbines. These are very high
    efficiency turbines that run on natural gas. And there has been
    very important work done, cost shared between industry and the
    government, to develop these turbines. They are going to make a
    huge difference.
        They are making a huge difference today in industry,
    allowing industry to generate power much more efficiently, and
    in some cases, actually sell it into the grid.
        We feel strongly that the development of these turbines
    either would not have happened or would have been much delayed.
    And there is a big international market for these.
        The second example is gasification technology. This is to
    gasify wastes and other materials from both the forest products
    industry and from agriculture, which will allow us to produce a
    gas that can fire a turbine. And in the forest products
    industry, this is the number one technology priority of that
    industry.
        If this kind of technology could go into that industry, it
    could go from a net user of energy to a net producer of energy,
    and radically change the bottom line for the industry.
        So, those are the two I would say.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.

                     ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING

        Mr. Secretary, wearing another hat or wearing the same hat
    in a different committee, you are very much aware of the
    controversy and the progress surrounding the restructuring of
    the electric power industry, and especially in the marketing of
    power. And I understand, soon we will have a recommendation
    from the Administration on that subject.
        But, of course, the industry has been changing more rapidly
    than the laws have been. It is going on quite rapidly.
        How has that restructuring affected federal energy research
    and development programs? Are--does this have any impact on the
    actual use in the market place of new techniques? And does it
    give us some caution as to whether or not we ought to let some
    of these restructurings work their way out before we know what
    research and development directions we should take?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, let me say that we think
    that having a federal restructuring bill will improve the input
    and impetus for new technologies.
        As you know, a lot of the States--I think it is 19--have
    already moved with restructuring legislation. We are going to
    have, very soon, a restructuring bill. It is going to include--
    I know this is an issue of concern to you--a BPA (Bonneville
    Power Administration) title. We are discussing that.
        And it is generally going to be consistent with the
    recommendation made by the region's governors. So, we will work
    closely with you on that.
        But on the technology issue, Senator, we think that it is
    important that we have a strong effort to improve our energy
    technologies. What we want to make sure is that our objectives
    are consistent.
        Senator Gorton. I have several more, but Senator Campbell,
    you were here, plenty on time. Have you got any questions that
    you would like to put to the Secretary while he is still
    present?

                                  ROCKY FLATS

        Senator Campbell. Well, I might just say, Mr. Secretary,
    that I particularly was pleased with the amount of money that
    the Administration has requested, $657 million, to continue the
    clean up with Rocky Flats.
        We had to--this committee put an additional $30 million
    last time around, in addition to what the President had asked.
    So, I think we are in the right direction, but I would like you
    to comment on two things I said in my opening statement.
        By the way, as you probably know, by the time this thing
    gets cleaned up and finally shut down, we will have spent
    something like $500 billion of taxpayers' money that could have
    gone to energy research and developing alternative fuels and
    new technology and all kinds of things to make the lives of
    Americans a little better. We are still stumbling along, trying
    to get that shut down by 2006.
        I would like you to just comment on two things. One, on
    this proposal I heard of putting additional work in there;
    whether that is going to prolong the shut down--the closing of
    Rocky Flats. The second is the so-called temporary locations,
    which I've heard described as tents, which I--they may be in
    some very safe sounding containers, but I have to tell you that
    the communities around Rocky Flats are kind of up in arms about
    the possibility of very, very flimsy or substandard structures
    to house this waste in; some of which obviously is radioactive;
    some of which is hazardous.
        I would like you to comment on both of those things. By the
    way, I understand the difficulty of opening WIPP. We were
    neighbors, and for a long time, your home State was New Mexico.
    I guess if things were turned around, Colorado would not be in
    a particular hurry to accept any kind of waste from New Mexico
    being shipped into Colorado.
        So, I can fully understand the lawsuit that is going on,
    but I would also like you to comment on that; if DOE can do
    anything to help resolve that, so that WIPP can be opened--
    those three things.

                          WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT

        Secretary Richardson. Senator, the Judge, hopefully on
    Tuesday, will rule in our favor on the Waste Isolation Pilot
    Plant (WIPP). And we can move waste there. This has been an
    endless bureaucratic delay that----
        Senator Campbell. This coming Tuesday you expect that
    decision to be made.
        Secretary Richardson. Yes. The Department of Energy has
    been precluded bureaucratically by my own State to do its job
    to open WIPP. And I am working vigorously to make sure that
    WIPP opens and it is ready to open.
        Senator Campbell. Does that mean that they can be--
    shipments transported immediately after that or is there a time
    frame?
        Secretary Richardson. Yes.
        Senator Campbell. It can be.
        Secretary Richardson. No; I think right after that. And we
    are ready to move right away.
        Senator Campbell. What is the need for temporary
    structures, then?
        Secretary Richardson. Well, if it doesn't open on time--the
    Judge may rule against us. I hope he does not, but we would run
    out of site storage for this waste. In other words, we would
    need temporary storage.
        So, let me just tell you a little bit about the tents. And
    let me, at the start, say to you that if I deem that these
    tents are not safe, I will reassess this decision. I commit
    that to you.
        But I have been informed by the site that these tents were
    previously used to store lower level waste. And these are tents
    that are being reinforced to withstand winds of more than about
    100 miles an hour. These tents----
        Senator Campbell. Winds through Boulder of 130 and 140 that
    tear up planes off of the tarmac, that are chained down.
        Secretary Richardson. If that is the case, and if they are
    unsafe, I will reassess this. But I am told that these are
    stainless steel, red fabric covered structures. It is an
    effective short-term option for us. But I will consult with you
    before I do this.
        You know, WIPP--I have also got an Idaho problem. That is
    not your problem, but it involves----
        Senator Campbell. You have got a lot of problems.
    (Laughter.)
        Secretary Richardson. Now, Senator, I promise you, we will
    have closure on Rocky Flats by 2006. Let me just say that it
    should not be any signal.
        We are accelerating the whole contracting process to meet
    the 2006 standard. I have made no decision on the contract, but
    it is going to be focused on whether we meet the 2006 goal. And
    we are committed to that.
        But Senator, do not listen to the contractor, who is going
    around saying they need more money to meet the 2006 goal. The
    money that I have requested from you, Mr. Chairman, is all they
    need. So, they will come and tell you that they need more. Do
    not believe them.
        Senator Campbell. OK. I will not listen to them. I will
    listen to you. And I am sure the people that live around that
    area will be looking forward to your earliest visit, which you
    promised me, with great anticipation. And I will remind them of
    your promise. Thank you.
        Secretary Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES

        Senator Gorton. Let me go back to research and development.
    I think it was just yesterday's newspapers here that had a
    major story on fuel cells.
        To what extent does the development of fuel cell vehicles
    threaten to overtake the developments that you have talked
    about here with respect to combustion engines and other, you
    know, alternatives? Is it reasonably imminent or so far in the
    future and so expensive that all of these other alternatives
    are justified, as well? And again, when is industry going to be
    able to go on its own on this?
        Secretary Richardson. Well, Senator, we have some goals in
    some years that we want to see these vehicles go commercial on
    the market. We have worked very closely with industry up until
    that point. They are working with us on joint research. Their
    technology is good. They are committed. Their record is good.
        I was in Detroit. I saw what they were doing. I think this
    is a very exciting new technology. Our hope is that in terms of
    time lines, that they meet this goal that has been imposed in
    the agreement they signed with the Administration. Dan?
        Mr. Reicher. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
    say that we are 5 years into what is a 10-year research and
    development program under the partnership for a new generation
    of vehicles. We are on track. This is what the co-chairs of
    Chrysler and other auto companies say about the project.
        It is a very strong partnership. With respect to your
    specific question about fuel cells overtaking other
    technologies, I think what we have been able to do in the
    partnership is narrow down, from a whole host of propulsion
    technologies, to essentially two: the so-called hybrid vehicle
    and the fuel cell vehicle.
        Both of those have real market potential; the hybrid
    vehicle somewhat before the fuel cell vehicle. And they are
    very complementary in terms of the next generation of cars to
    be put on the road.
        So, we are down from a much larger stable of propulsion
    technologies that this subcommittee supported. We are down to
    these two. We are making very good progress on both. We have
    healthy competition from across the globe.
        And if it is something that we want to win as a nation, in
    terms of our auto industry, it is something we should continue
    to fund in this very vital partnership.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you. Today 2:30 meant 2:30 on this
    vote, Mr. Secretary. We have a couple more minutes.
        I have one more I would like to put to you now.
        Secretary Richardson. Sure.

                             ENERGY USE MEASUREMENT

        Senator Gorton. Last year, both the House Committee and the
    Senate Committee reports urged the department to make a greater
    effort to increase the use of source measurement techniques in
    departmental programs within the parameters of the law under
    which you operate.
        In part, this reflects the Committee's interest in seeing
    that the measurements used in assessing the relative success of
    various departmental programs reflect as accurately as possible
    the actual public benefits of these programs.
        Have you taken significant steps in response to the
    Committee report language? And are you concerned that measures
    used to assess the success of any of these programs do or do
    not accurately reflect their actual benefits?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, we are going to continue to
    use methodologies in determining appliance standards that are
    consistent with the applicable statutes. These are what are
    called point-of-use measurements of emissions and energy costs,
    as opposed to looking at the full fuel cycle in a more complex
    way.
        We have taken input from the language and the bill from the
    advisory committees. Mr. Reicher, maybe, can supplement what I
    have said.
        Senator Gorton. Glad you came, Mr. Reicher.
        Mr. Reicher. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. There is a great
    difference of opinion between essentially--to be very candid--
    the natural gas industry and the electric industry over how to
    measure energy, site versus source. And as the Secretary
    indicated, we are looking at both.
        What we are trying to do is actually help broker this
    difference of opinion. We are in the middle of a study right
    now that looks at ways that we can find some common ground in
    this dispute and do a better job of both measuring improvements
    in site energy use, which gets to the efficiency of the
    appliances and the equipment themselves, and also do a better
    job of seeing what kind of impact that has back at the source
    of that energy; what we are doing to the overall use of energy.
        Senator Gorton. When are we likely to see that study?
        Mr. Reicher. In the next couple of months. We put it into
    play shortly after we got the language from you. It is being
    done by the Rand Corporation. They are essentially interviewing
    all the people in what I can only describe as a small holy war
    that is going on with respect----
        Senator Gorton. We are aware of it.
        Mr. Reicher. Yes.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, would you like to ask one
    more?
        Senator Byrd. I will ask one more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Secretary, considerable attention is being focused on
    climate change. This is an area in which I have a great
    interest, because of the potential cost to energy users, the
    risks contained in premature decisions, and the possible energy
    and economic impacts from proposed steps to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions.
        And there is no one answer to these difficult questions; no
    single silver bullet to fix the problem. We need to build upon
    science and research to help resolve the issues. Whatever
    approach we take, must balance fuel diversity, domestic energy
    security, energy efficiency, technological development, and
    economic growth.
        In the next century, the greatest growth in greenhouse gas
    emissions will be in the large developing countries, like China
    and India. This growth provides an opportunity to promote the
    sale of our clean coal technologies abroad, and ensure that
    developing nations become partners in global solutions to
    climate change issues.
        In my opinion, the Department is not doing enough to take
    advantage of this opportunity to help developing countries
    sustain the environment through the sale of our clean coal
    technologies.
        This is my question: What plans does the Department of
    Energy have to facilitate the sale of U.S. clean coal
    technologies abroad and encourage developing nations to install
    and use these clean coal technologies?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator Byrd, we appreciate your
    leadership on this issue. And your resolution with Senator
    Hagel, which basically said that we cannot seriously address
    climate change without developing nations participating; makes
    a lot of sense.
        We are focusing, at the Department of Energy, through
    technology, to deal with developing nations on utilizing clean
    coal technologies. This year, I will convene the Energy
    Ministers of Latin America and Africa, precisely on that point.
        How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a joint
    technology project? And a lot of it is due to your leadership
    and that resolution.
        Second, with China, India, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil,
    leaders of the developing world, we need to have more
    concentrated strategies. We need to make these countries more
    familiar with American technology by cooperative research and
    development, technical assistance, and workshops. We have to
    have better incentive packages for them--financing--that can
    reduce the costs of these new technologies.
        And we need to continue our research and development
    program. But I can tell you that we got the message that you
    let us have in that resolution by the fact that in the last
    Buenos Aires conference, only Argentina and Kazakstan supported
    us in our efforts.
        So, we need to do more to get more support. So, we commit
    to you a strategy that is already in place to bring technology
    and our expertise in environmental climate change to developing
    countries.
        Senator Byrd. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want
    to work with you in this.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gorton. Well, Mr. Secretary, like Mr. Holyfield,
    you are saved by the bell. And I think you did a somewhat
    better job than he did on Saturday night.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, I was there. He did lose. I
    was there.
        Senator Gorton. OK.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
                                accomplishments
        Question. You mentioned in your opening statement a few examples of
    technologies that have been developed with DOE assistance and
    successfully deployed in the marketplace. Can you describe a few of
    these or other examples in more detail, and talk a little bit about how
    specifically the Department was involved, why the Department was
    involved, why these advancements wouldn't have been made without
    federal support, etc.? If possible, please choose examples of successes
    that have occurred in the last year, and pick a number of examples from
    different program areas.
        Answer. Some of the most significant technology developments
    emerging from DOE-sponsored research include the following:
      --Lower-cost pollution controls: In the mid-1980s, the only available
            technologies for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOX)--the
            pollutant that contributes to smog, ground-level ozone, and
            acid rain--cost nearly $3,000 per ton of NOX. Today,
            DOE's research and development and Clean Coal Technology
            efforts have helped develop the low-NOX burner which
            can reduce nitrogen oxides at costs of only $200 per ton.
          Had DOE not been involved in the development of these low-
            polluting burners, utilities would have likely opted for higher
            cost control options to meet new federal Clean Air regulations
            and passed the additional costs on to ratepayers. Recent data
            shows that U.S. utilities have installed one of the three major
            types of low-NOX burners demonstrated in DOE's
            program on 150,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity. Sales to
            date have totaled approximately $2 billion. As utilities make
            continuing investments to comply with the Clean Air Act
            Amendments over the next few years, sales are expected to reach
            270,000 megawatts and total nearly $4.5 billion.
          Another way to control nitrogen oxide pollutants is to create a
            ``reburn'' zone in the boiler to break down the pollutants into
            environmentally harmless gases. The first units have used
            natural gas as the reburn fuel, but recently as part of a DOE
            project, the feasibility of using micronized coal was shown. As
            a result, Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York, has decided to
            use the technology to meet its NOX reduction
            requirements, not only continuing its use at the demonstration
            site but installing it on at least two other units after the
            DOE program is finished.
      --The ``next generation'' of power plants: Until the 1990s, power
            plants had basically one way to generate power from coal: burn
            it. In the last few years, DOE's coal technology program has
            helped pioneer a new, significantly cleaner and more efficient
            way to use coal to generate electricity. The integrated
            gasification combined cycle (IGCC) process changes coal into a
            gas that can be cleaned of virtually all of its pollutant-
            forming impurities, then burns the gas in a gas turbine and
            captures excess heat for use in a conventional steam turbine
            generator.
          DOE's Clean Coal Technology Program shared the costs and risks of
            building the first three commercial-scale test units for this
            process in the United States--each test unit targeted at a
            different application in the power market. This year, one of
            these first-of-a-kind plants--the Tampa Electric IGCC project--
            set a new power production record, generating 325 megawatts of
            electric power, exceeding its ``nameplate'' capacity of 310
            megawatts. To date, Tampa's 21st century power system has
            accumulated more than 11,000 hours of operation on gasified
            coal. Another of the demonstration plants, in Indiana, produced
            its millionth megawatt-hour of electricity and processed its
            500,000th ton of coal in October 1998, both significant
            accomplishments in proving the operational reliability of this
            new, super-clean, power generating technology.
          Had DOE not been involved, the innovative technology would have
            likely been confined to smaller-scale research for several more
            years, perhaps for a decade or more. DOE's involvement
            accelerated full-size testing of the process and positioned it
            for commercial market applications at a time when many nations
            are looking for cleaner power options to support economic
            expansion.
      --Smaller oil and gas ``footprints.'' A smaller wellpad is an
            environmentally better wellpad. DOE's research and development
            program has given industry a greater number of tools--and the
            confidence--to use new approaches such as horizontal drilling
            and, particularly in the last year, ``slimhole'' drilling, to
            reduce the size of wellpads. If research and development had
            stopped in the mid-1980s--at the point where many of the larger
            oil producers in the United States began shifting their
            attention to more lucrative prospects overseas--today's drill
            pads in the United States would have covered an additional
            17,000 acres of land, an area roughly the size of nearly 13,000
            football fields.
      --Four-dimensional seismic technology. One of the most significant
            advances in petroleum technology has been the development of 3-
            D seismic imaging--which gives producers the ability to ``see''
            potential oil- and gas-bearing formations in three spatial
            dimensions. But a DOE cost-shared project showed that imaging
            technology did not have to be limited to only three dimensions.
            A fourth--time--could be added to reveal entirely new and
            valuable data about the productive potential of an oil
            reservoir. In some fields, for example, 4-D seismic showed that
            reservoirs were actually being replenished by oil migrating
            upward through natural fractures from deeper sources. Tapping
            into self-replenishing reservoirs fed by these fracture systems
            is proving, in many cases, to be significantly more
            economically attractive than drilling large numbers of deep,
            expensive holes to less prolific sources. Because of DOE's
            investment to move the technology out of the laboratory and
            into practical application, 4-D seismic technology accounted
            for more than $500 million in commercial oil and gas services
            in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998.
      --Subsalt seismic imaging. One of the nation's largest oil-bearing
            regions may have been hidden beneath the large irregularly
            shaped salt formations the extend beneath nearly 40 percent of
            the Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Now, an industry team
            working in partnership with DOE's Los Alamos National
            Laboratory is developing advanced seismic processing techniques
            that increase the resolution of potential oil-bearing
            formations that lie below the complex salt structures. In the
            last year, this technology has spurred producers to begin new
            subsalt wildcat wells. Now over 30 such wells have been drilled
            by 16 producers. Eight successful discoveries have been
            reported so far, three of which contain reserves of more than
            100 million barrels of oil. Industry experts now predict at
            least a 30 percent success rate for subsalt drilling in the
            Gulf--a rate that would have been unattainable without DOE's
            involvement in enhanced seismic processing and modeling
            techniques.
                                 restructuring
        Question. The electric industry continues to undergo major
    restructuring, based on a combination of market forces and actions
    being taken in state legislatures. Federal legislation on this subject
    will again be a topic of considerable debate in this Congress. How has
    the industry restructuring affected federal energy research and
    development programs?
        Answer. The two main ways that incipient and actual electric
    industry deregulation and restructuring has affected federal energy
    research and development programs are as follows:
      --The electric industry has reduced funding for research and
            development.
          Under regulation, electric companies were for the most part able
            to pass the costs of research on to their customers, with the
            approval of regulators. But under restructuring, where
            competition and profit will depend crucially on reducing costs,
            electricity companies have decreased their own research and
            development as well as industry-wide contributions to EPRI.
            Because EPRI and individual firms cost-share research and
            development with DOE, federal research and development suffers
            as well.
      --Products of research and development must be able to compete even
            more on the basis of cost.
          Although regulated utilities would always prefer to cost
            minimize, it is also true that if regulators could be persuaded
            to put costs into rate base, the utility could recover its
            costs with a profit, even if the equipment wasn't as low cost
            as it might have been. Now, however, electricity companies will
            concentrate even more on choosing the cheapest technology that
            gets the job done. If they were to do otherwise, the result in
            lost profits would immediately go to their bottom line. Thus
            there is an even greater sensitivity to using research and
            development to produce low- cost, emission reducing products or
            technologies with a longer payback time.
        Question. With the industry in a state of flux, are the new
    technologies being developed in these programs having trouble making it
    into the marketplace?
        Answer. Many Fossil Energy programs are long-range in nature; for
    example, the Vision 21 technologies and carbon sequestration
    activities. The program goals are for these programs to be economic by
    the time they are introduced to market, sometime in the 2010 to 2020
    time frame, depending upon the specific technology involved. Therefore,
    it is too early to judge whether they would have trouble making it into
    the marketplace, but some indicators suggest there should be a strong
    market demand.
        Several recent, shorter-term Fossil Energy research and development
    technologies have been very cost-effective, including low-
    NOX burners, which reduce NOX at a cost about
    one-tenth of previously available post-combustion technology. Low
    NOX burners have not had any difficulties in penetrating the
    market. Close to half the existing coal power plants are using them.
        Question. Should we be more conservative in making federal
    investments in energy generating technologies until the industry
    restructuring settles out, and it becomes more clear what types of
    technologies are likely to be accepted in the marketplace?
        Answer. In this period of uncertainty, as electric companies focus
    their energies and dollars on the pressures of restructuring--market
    share, mergers, domestic versus foreign growth, and so on--the need for
    new technologies to provide lower environmental emissions is unlikely
    to wait. Domestic energy needs, too, will continue to grow, as the
    economy continues its remarkable expansion. A good argument can be made
    that, with private industry mostly otherwise occupied, the need for
    federal environmental research and development is high. Longer term,
    60+ percent efficient coal units and 70+ percent natural gas units
    (efficiencies calculated before any credit for use of waste heat), with
    virtually zero-emissions, will take 10 to 20 years to develop. Given
    the desire of citizens to continue to have ever more clean emissions,
    development of these technologies should not be postponed.
                   site versus source measurement techniques
        Question. Last year, both the House and Senate committee reports
    urged the Department to make a greater effort to increase the use of
    ``source'' measurement techniques in departmental programs, within the
    parameters of current law. This in part reflects the Committee's
    interest in seeing that the measurements used in assessing the relative
    success of various DOE programs reflect as accurately as possible the
    actual public benefits of those programs. What steps has the Department
    taken in response to the Committee report language?
        Answer. The Department has not had to make changes in the
    measurements used to assess the benefits of various programs since the
    Department has always used a number of different measurements to assess
    public benefits. For example, in evaluating the impacts of appliance
    energy efficiency standards, the Department considers the full range of
    impacts, including consumer and national impacts. In the analysis of
    consumer impacts, the Department considers the energy directly consumed
    by the product at the point of use. This, DOE believes, provides useful
    measures to consumers since it can be directly related to information
    readily available, that is, utility bills. In examining the impacts of
    standards on the nation, however, the Department considers the total
    energy consumed over the fuel cycle as well as emissions and energy
    costs. In this manner, the analysis captures the total impact of the
    standards.
        Question. Is the Department concerned that the measures used to
    assess the success of any of its programs do not accurately reflect the
    actual benefits of the programs?
        Answer. The Department believes that its selection of measures
    accurately reflects the benefits of its programs.
                              carbon sequestration
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes increased
    funding in a number of programs for research on carbon sequestration
    technologies such as bioprocessing of coal, CO2 storage in
    coal seams, and other novel sequestration techniques. Is the research
    proposed in any way driven by an assumption that the Kyoto Protocol
    will be ratified?
        Answer. Fossil Energy's sequestration research is targeted to
    produce a suite of practical technologies for deployment in the 2015
    timeframe, with significant expansion in scope and reduction in cost
    for sequestration in the following decade. In contrast, emission
    reductions under the Kyoto Protocol are required over the 2008 to 2012
    time period. Hence, the research is not directly related to the Kyoto
    Protocol. However, such technologies could prove useful as we define
    the potentially more difficult long-term goals of stabilizing
    greenhouse gas emissions on the long term. Additionally, several
    sequestration technologies have potential worth pursuing without any
    consideration of the climate issue, as they could increase U.S. energy
    resources when used in conjunction with enhanced oil recovery or
    methane recovery from unmineable coal seams.
        Question. What other agencies are conducting research on carbon
    sequestration technologies?
        Answer. Other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA), Department of Interior (DOI), and Environmental
    Protection Agency, are conducting research on various aspects of carbon
    sequestration. USDA and DOI have been represented by the U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS) and U.S. Geological survey, respectively. All of these
    agencies have been actively involved in the production of DOE's draft
    report titled ``Carbon Sequestration: State of the Science.'' In this
    report, USDA has been actively involved in the sections which address
    sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems (soils and vegetation) and
    advanced biological processes. All of the agencies have served in
    drafting and reviewing the report, and have participated a technical
    workshop that was held on this subject in October 1998. In addition,
    DOE is working closely with the USFS to demonstrate enhanced
    productivity from marginal soils by supplying needed nutrients from
    coal combustion by-products such as flyash and flue gas desulfurization
    waste. These products are being applied as a part of a USFS biomass
    mulching research program.
        Question. In your view, is the research proposed by the Department
    likely to result in economically feasible sequestration techniques at
    any time in the foreseeable future?
        Answer. Fossil Energy's sequestration research is targeted to
    produce a suite of practical technologies for deployment in the 2015
    timeframe, with significant expansion in scope and reduction in cost
    for sequestration in the following decade. Our long-term goal for this
    program is to create a portfolio of technologies which can sequester
    hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gases per year for under $10
    per ton of carbon equivalent.
        Question. Would these funds be more productively spent on some of
    the other, ongoing research and development programs under this
    subcommittee's jurisdiction that promise near or mid-term efficiency
    improvements that will also help reduce carbon emissions?
        Answer. It is not an ``either-or'' issue. While the Fossil Energy
    strategy reflected in the budget does focus on key long term goals to
    achieve critical public needs and benefits, it also addresses promising
    near and mid-term opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce
    emissions.
        Fossil Energy believes that a balanced portfolio of options is
    necessary to address the climate change issue. Fossil Energy has three
    program elements which address climate change both over the short and
    long term. These are increased efficiency of electric power generation,
    carbon sequestration, and more efficient use and production of natural
    gas. Development of higher efficiency power generation technologies
    will reduce the amount of carbon produced per kilowatt hour generated.
    Research to improve the nation's ability to supply, store, transport,
    distribute and utilize natural gas in an economically efficient and
    environmentally beneficial manner will reduce carbon emissions because
    natural gas is the least carbon intensive fossil fuel. The purpose of
    the Fossil Energy sequestration program is to develop and demonstrate
    technically, economically, and ecologically sound methods to capture,
    reuse and dispose of CO2, in the post-2015 time frame. The
    Department believes that resources being requested to pursue improved
    fossil energy technologies are appropriately balanced with resources
    requested to pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy
    technologies.
                              direct liquefaction
        Question. The budget request contains funding for continued bench
    scale research on liquefaction technology, but does not include funds
    for deployment of a demonstration plant. What funding level would be
    required in fiscal year 2000 to support deployment of a demonstration
    plant?
        Answer. On February 15, 1999, the Department solicited proposals to
    perform a feasibility study, research and development and a preliminary
    engineering design of an Early Entrance Coproduction Plant. Industry
    would be responsible for the subsequent detailed design, construction
    and operation of the plant in the 2004 to 2007 time period. The plant
    must be designed to produce some combination of electricity (or heat),
    fuels and chemicals through the gasification and indirect liquefaction
    of coal, alone or in combination with other feedstocks such as wastes
    and biomass. Since there is limited commercial interest in Direct
    liquefaction, the technology is likely to be deployed a number of years
    after the establishment of an indirect liquefaction industry. Thus, the
    bench scale research is directed toward smaller-scale tests with longer
    range perspective. If the Department were to conduct preliminary
    activities for direct liquefaction technology, these activities would
    include feasibility studies, supporting research and site specific
    preliminary designs. These are activities that would create the data
    base needed for U.S. industry to participate in international direct
    liquefaction projects (for example, China).
        Question. Is this something the Department considered during fiscal
    year 2000 budget formulation?
        Answer. The Department's current strategy is to conduct preliminary
    activities for demonstration of an Early Entrance Coproduction Plant
    which would utilize indirect liquefaction technology to produce ultra-
    low emission transportation fuels, chemicals and electricity. The
    commercial deployment of direct liquefaction technology in the United
    States is likely to be a number of years later than indirect
    liquefaction, thus the research on Direct Liquefaction is now focused
    on smaller scale laboratory and bench-scale tests. The Department did
    support bench scale and proof-of-concept activity with HTI to conduct a
    feasibility study for a potential demonstration of direct liquefaction
    technology in the Peoples Republic of China. No consideration was given
    to a domestic direct liquefaction demonstration in the United States
    since it is believed that the first liquids plants would be based on
    gasification of carbonaceous feedstocks such as petcoke, wastes and
    coal and, therefore, utilize the indirect conversion route to making
    fuels and chemicals.
                             indirect liquefaction
        Question. The request includes funds to continue feasibility study
    and conceptual design for a pioneer Fischer-Tropsch plant in
    conjunction with an industry consortium. How long does the Department
    anticipate this study will take to complete?
        Answer. On February 16, 1999, the Department issued a solicitation
    for the Early Entrance Coproduction Plant. Proposals were due on April
    30, 1999. The activities to be conducted within this procurement
    include three phases: feasibility and market studies to address the
    technical, economic, and environmental issues associated with the
    proposed plant concept; supporting research; and a site specific
    preliminary design. It is planned to fund at least three teams to
    complete all three phases. Each team's schedule would depend on the
    specific scope of work the team needs to perform prior to doing a
    detailed plant design. However, it is estimated that to conduct these
    three phases would require an average of four years to complete. It is
    estimated that the first phase feasibility study will take 12 to 18
    months to complete.
        Question. Does the Department intend to move to a detailed design
    and construction phase in this program?
        Answer. On February 16, 1999, the Department issued a solicitation
    for the Early Entrance Coproduction Plant. Proposals were due on April
    30, 1999. The activities to be conducted within this procurement
    include three phases: (1) feasibility and market studies to address the
    technical, economic and environmental issues associated with the
    proposed plant concept; (2) supporting research; and (3) a site
    specific preliminary design. The Department has not committed to
    funding the remaining phases that would encompass the detailed
    engineering design, construction and operation of the plant. With the
    information obtained in the first three phases, it is anticipated that
    the industrial teams will be able to obtain private sector funding for
    the detailed design and construction phase of the program. During the
    initial phases, the teams may also identify innovative financing
    strategies.
        Question. If so, when will these stages likely be reached?
        Answer. The objective of the three phase pre-detailed design
    activities is to provide the technical, economic, and environmental
    basis upon which the industrial teams will be able to secure private
    sector funding. It is planned that their plants could be ready for
    detailed design and construction as early as 2003.
        Question. How much will construction of a pioneer plan likely cost?
        Answer. The actual construction cost for an Early Entrance
    Coproduction Plant cannot be accurately established until the three
    preliminary design phases are conducted. The cost will also depend on
    the degree of existing facilities that are available to the industrial
    consortium. Preliminary economic analysis for ``generic'' Early
    Entrance Coproduction Plants'' based on Gasification configurations for
    a power plant and refinery locations provided ballpark estimates of $75
    to $350 million depending upon the availability of existing facilities.
                 advanced research and environmental technology
        Question. The request indicates that fuels research focus in this
    program is shifting in part to hydrogen storage for fuel cell
    applications. How will the work that would be supported by the Fossil
    program relate to and be coordinated with the work being supported by
    the Office of Transportation Technologies?
        Answer. The part of the Fossil Energy program that is shifting to
    hydrogen storage methods that may be applied to fuel cell applications
    is twofold; chemical storage and physical storage. The chemical storage
    work is the study of hydrogen release by the decomposition, under mild
    conditions, of coal-derived, hydrogen-containing liquid fuels. The
    physical storage work studies the storage of hydrogen in nano-
    structured [structures on the molecular scale] carbons by a sorption
    mechanism. Both would be applicable to fuel cell powered vehicles but
    are also be useful in many other applications of interest to Fossil
    Energy.
        Generally, Fuels Advanced Research and Environmental Technology
    (AR&ET) funds more exploratory work (for transfer to Fossil Energy line
    programs when the technology is ready for further development). The
    Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) has funded work of a more
    mature nature. For example, OTT (co-funding with the Energy Efficiency/
    Office of Power Technology H2 program) is working on carbon-
    fiber-reinforced tanks for storage (Thiokol Corp) of either liquid or
    pressurized gaseous hydrogen for use onboard a vehicle. The advantage
    of carbon is its high strength-to-weight ratio as a fibrous material.
    In this case, the carbon fiber is on a macro-scale, much like
    fiberglass, and is a physical component of a lightweight, hydrogen
    storage tank assembly suitable for vehicle use. The nano-structured
    carbons of AR&ET interest, on the other hand, would be used as storage
    vessel filler material that would hold the hydrogen as a sponge holds
    water, releasing the hydrogen on mild heating or depressurization for
    feeding into the fuel cell. These materials are not yet well understood
    and are much further from being commercialized.
        Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency/OTT are acutely aware of each
    other's work and are careful about redundancy. Work done by Fossil
    Energy that is applicable to OTT is well known to them; OTT/Office of
    Advanced Automotive Technology is a partner in co-funding the work in
    the chemical storage area. All three programs are coordinated through
    periodic meetings and program reviews.
        Question. The request indicates that the Department will continue
    to work with the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
    (CFFLS) in fiscal year 2000. What level of support does the Department
    anticipate providing CFFLS in fiscal year 2000 from the AR&ET program?
    From other departmental programs?
        Answer. The Advanced Research & Environmental Technology budget
    provides $300,000 for this activity in fiscal year 2000 at the
    reference budget level. This is the same funding level provided from
    this budget line in the current fiscal year (fiscal year 1999). In
    addition to the $300,000 budgeted by the AR&ET program, the Indirect
    Liquefaction and Gas-to-Liquids budgets will each contribute $50,000,
    for a total of $400,000 from Fossil Energy programs. No additional
    Departmental funding is provided for this activity.
        Question. Mercury emissions remain a significant problem in the
    utilization of coal. What progress has been made in recent years in
    developing cost-effective mercury control technologies?
        Answer. The Department has developed accurate methods to measure
    specific forms of mercury in flue gases, investigated the
    transformation of mercury in coal combustors, and evaluated numerous
    sorbents for mercury control. Bench- and pilot-scale testing on
    injection of activated carbon in conjunction with conventional
    particulate control devices, novel particulate control techniques that
    work in combination with existing particulate control equipment, and
    concepts that convert elemental mercury in the flue gas to the oxidized
    form are being developed. Significant mercury removals, up to 90
    percent, are possible if most of the mercury is in the oxidized form
    and the power plant is equipped with Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization.
    Results from the pilot-scale tests have provided more definitive
    mercury control cost data, which was incorporated into EPA's Mercury
    Report to Congress. Because all of these concepts are at the pilot
    stage, field testing experience would be needed before
    commercialization and widespread application to the utility industry.
        Question. What barriers remain to deployment of such technologies?
        Answer. The most significant barrier to deployment is developing
    mercury control technologies that have widespread applicability across
    the utility industry. Coal, when combusted, produces several distinct
    chemical forms of mercury, which require specific control strategies.
    For example, subbituminous coals generate mostly elemental mercury
    while combustion of bituminous and lignite coals result in varying
    amounts of oxidized and elemental mercury. Control concepts that can
    reduce emissions of elemental mercury are not effective in reducing
    oxidized mercury. Because different control methods are required to
    capture all forms of mercury in coal combustion flue gases,
    considerable uncertainty exists over the costs of mercury control. More
    research is also necessary to determine the stability of mercury in
    solid or liquid byproducts from potential mercury control technologies
    to ensure that the mercury is not reintroduced to the environment.
        Question. What work is being done in this area in fiscal year 2000
    and in what program elements?
        Answer. The testing of promising mercury control concepts will be
    completed in fiscal year 2000. The Department is planning to request
    proposals to obtain field experience for promising mercury control
    technologies in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. Projects
    selected from this request would be implemented in fiscal year 2000.
    The mercury control technology research and development activities are
    conducted in the Air Toxics/Fine Particulates key activity in the
    Advanced Research and Environmental program.
        In addition, the Environmental programs at the FETC and at
    headquarters are each contributing $50,000 to a multi-agency study of
    mercury exposure and diet in the United States. The collaborative study
    by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug
    Administration, to cost $825,000 over 3 years, is co-funded by EPA,
    FDA, DOE, NOAA, DHHS, and NIEHS. It is scheduled to be completed in
    2001.
                           low emission boiler system
        Question. The reduction in the request for the LEBS program
    reflects the fact that funds have already been appropriated for
    construction of the proof-of-concept facility. What is the status of
    the DB Riley team's effort to obtain the required cost sharing,
    financing, and power sales agreements necessary to enable this project
    to go forward?
        Answer. As of mid-January 1999, $3 million of the $25 million full
    Illinois cost-share has been appropriated. The State of Illinois
    supports this project and has authorized $25.2 million in coal
    development bonds for the project and is committed to providing the
    remaining $22 million necessary to complete this project. The Governor
    of Illinois included the $22 million in his budget for fiscal year
    2000. The Illinois legislature will act on this budget which takes
    effect July 1, 1999.
        The participants have indicated that several conditional letter
    agreements regarding the purchase of the full power output from the
    Prairie Energy Project have been received. Prospective purchasers
    include independent power producers and development arms of U.S. based
    Fortune 500 electric utilities. The project team is currently
    negotiating with prospective power purchasers, but is not able to
    divulge any details due to the confidential nature of these
    proceedings. The participants expect negotiations to be completed in
    the April to May time frame, at which time the results will be made
    public. The project requires private debt financing of $50 million. A
    financial business plan was released to lenders in February 1999.
    Responses from lenders are anticipated in time to have a loan
    commitment by June 1999. Project financing is expected to be complete
    by October 1999.
        Question. If the project proceeds on the schedule currently
    anticipated, does the Department anticipate obligating all of the $3
    million included the budget request during fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Yes, the Department intends to obligate the $3 million in
    the year 2000.
        Question. For what specific purposes will these funds be used?
        Answer. The funds will be use for Phase IV, the final portion of
    the program, which includes detailed design, construction, and
    operation of a proof-of-concept facility.
        Question. Is the Department aware of the alternative proposal that
    would site the proof-of-concept facility at the Savannah River site in
    South Carolina?
        Answer. Yes, the Savannah River site was offered as an alternate
    site in the DB Riley proposal submitted at the end of Phase II and III.
        Question. Has the Department evaluated this proposal in any detail?
        Answer. Yes, the DB Riley proposal for Phase IV, which included the
    Savannah River site as an alternate site, was evaluated in 1997. The
    Elkhart, Illinois, site was selected on the merits of the proposal.
        Question. If the Illinois site were not viable for some reason,
    would the Savannah River site provide the type of operating information
    required to validate the technology?
        Answer. Because Phase IV is cost-shared between industry and
    government, with industry bearing more than 50 percent of the total
    project cost, to build at any site other than Elkhart, Illinois, is the
    initiative of the DB Riley team, not the Department. Thus, the details
    of constructing and operating a proof-of-concept facility at another
    site would depend on what DB Riley proposes.
                              indirect fired cycle
        Question. $1 million is requested for combustion and furnace module
    development and systems design. How does this work relate to work
    performed in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The High Performance Power Systems (HIPPS) program is being
    restructured. Phase III, which originally was to construct and operate
    a prototype HIPPS, has been eliminated. Those elements of HIPPS Phase
    II that are appropriate to Vision 21 will continue. The combustion and
    furnace module development and systems design are among those elements.
        Question. Does this represent a new direction in research, or is
    this simply an ongoing program element being displayed in a different
    manner in the justification?
        Answer. This is not a new direction in research since these
    activities were included as part of the original Phase II program.
    However, the focus of the HIPPS program is geared towards developing
    modules that can eventually be used in Vision 21. Therefore, those
    modules of HIPPS appropriate to Vision 21 will continue.
                advanced research and environmental technologies
        Question. Significant increases are requested for various
    components of the AR&ET program. What additional work will the increase
    requested for Fine Particulate Control enable the Department to do?
        Answer. Additional work will be carried out in: the development of
    cost-effective control technology for both primary fine particulate
    emissions (for example, fly ash) and secondary fine particulate
    precursor emissions (SO2 and NOX); the collection
    and chemical analysis of ambient fine particulate matter; the
    characterization of emissions from coal-based power systems; and the
    assessment of source-receptor relationships.
        Question. At what locations is the Department currently supporting
    particulate monitoring stations?
        Answer. The Department is currently supporting particulate
    monitoring stations in the upper Ohio River valley (southwestern
    Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio, and northwestern West Virginia); in
    Atlanta, Georgia; in Birmingham, Alabama; in the Big Bend National Park
    in south central Texas; and in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park
    in eastern Tennessee.
        Question. How are decisions made regarding the location of
    monitoring stations in this program?
        Answer. Decisions regarding location of monitoring stations are
    based on discussions with key public and private sector stakeholders
    including USEPA, state and local agencies, and the electric utility
    industry, to meet the Department's overall goal of better understanding
    the relationship between coal-based power generation and ambient air
    quality. Decisions on location of monitoring stations are also made
    based on opportunities to leverage Department funding in ongoing
    monitoring programs such as those in Atlanta, Birmingham, the Great
    Smoky Mountain National Park, and Big Bend National Park, that are also
    designed to provide a better understanding of the potential
    contributions from coal combustion to ambient particulate matter and
    regional haze.
        Question. How is this work coordinated with other federal and state
    agencies doing similar monitoring work?
        Answer. The Department works closely with USEPA and state agencies
    to ensure that its monitoring activities are well coordinated. The
    USEPA serves on the Department's technical advisory committee for the
    monitoring program in the upper Ohio River valley region. DOE and EPA
    also participate together in NARSTO and on the federal Air Quality
    Research Subcommittee. The Department talks with USEPA on a regular
    basis on fine particulate monitoring issues. In addition, DOE has
    established memorandums of agreement with the states of Pennsylvania,
    Ohio, and West Virginia and with the Allegheny County (PA) Health
    Department related to collaboration on fine particulate monitoring in
    the tri-state region, and is also coordinating with the mid-Atlantic
    region Air Management Association, which represents air quality
    managers from several mid-Atlantic states.
        Question. How long do the Department and its partners plan on
    operating these stations?
        Answer. The Department anticipates collaborating with its partners
    on particulate monitoring in parallel with the current fine particulate
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards implementation schedule, which
    calls for the collection and analysis of ambient fine particulates
    through 2005.
        Question. What is the status of funds appropriated in fiscal year
    1999 for Greenhouse Gas Control?
        Answer. The funds are being used to support research efforts under
    two programs related to greenhouse gas control under the Fossil Energy
    portion of the Climate Change technology Initiative: advanced, clean,
    efficient power generation technologies; and carbon sequestration
    research. The Fossil Energy budget for the Climate Change Technology
    Initiative in fiscal year 1999 is $24 million.
        Question. Please provide for the record examples of the types of
    research that has been funded thus far in this program element.
        Answer. Examples of the type of research funded so far include the
    following:
      --$18 million in fiscal year 1999 to initiate research to double the
            efficiency of coal powerplants and virtually eliminate all
            emissions, including carbon emissions with sequestration.
      --$6 million in fiscal year 1999 for carbon sequestration research
            and development. The carbon sequestration work includes
            technologies to capture and separate carbon dioxide from fuel
            gas or flue gas, as well as technologies to dispose of the
            captured carbon dioxide through various approaches, including
            depleted oil and gas reservoirs, underground saline aquifers,
            and unmineable coal seams.
        Although not in the CCTI budget, Fossil Energy also has programs to
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the nation's ability to
    supply, store, transport, distribute and utilize natural gas in an
    economically efficient and environmentally beneficial manner. Natural
    gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit of useful energy than any other
    fossil fuel.
        Question. Will the increase in this program be used for additional
    solicitations, follow-on work on proposals already selected, in-house
    research, or all of the above?
        Answer. The increased funding for the program will be used for all
    of the above. At previous levels of funding for sequestration (below $2
    million per year), the research program was limited to paper studies
    and highly leveraged Fossil Energy contributions to research conducted
    by other organizations. At fiscal year 1999 and 2000 funding levels it
    is possible to take the better concepts emerging from our earlier
    research and conduct small scale field tests and experiments.
                  advanced research and technology development
        Question. How does the CO2 sequestration work being done
    in the Coal Utilization Science program differ from the sequestration
    work being supported from the Advanced Research and Environmental
    Technology, Greenhouse Control program?
        Answer. The sequestration work being done in the Coal Utilization
    Science program has broad crosscutting application and supports all of
    the Fossil Energy Coal and Power Systems programs, including the
    Advanced Research and Environmental Technology program, which focuses
    on more applied areas of sequestration research such as sequestration
    in coal seams and depleted oil and gas reservoirs.
        Question. Does the Department work with other federal agencies and
    programs (such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
    in the Bioprocessing program?
        Answer. The Department works with other agencies and programs to
    coordinate its Bioprocessing program; specifically, the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
    Army Corp of Engineers, and several state agencies.
        Question. Is there a working group or council that coordinates
    federal research in this area?
        Answer. Within the Department of Energy, there is a Bio Energy
    Coordinating Committee that Coordinates research in the biotechnology
    area. The Committee consists of representatives from the Offices of
    Science, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and
    Environmental Management. In addition, within AR&TD there are working
    groups formed within FETC specifically to coordinate and direct this
    research.
        Question. Can you provide for the record some recent examples of
    research supported by the University Coal Research program that has
    proven useful to or incorporated into the principal programs of the
    Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development?
        Answer. Research supported by the University Coal Research program
    supports all of the principal programs in the Office of Fossil Energy's
    Research and Development portfolio. This is accomplished by the active
    involvement of FE headquarters and field staff to identify and develop
    the highest priority research topics to be sponsored under an annual
    grant solicitation to U.S. universities. These research grants have
    resulted in significant accomplishments. An example of one of the most
    recent is highlighted below.
        One of the grants that was awarded in 1996 was to the University of
    Arkansas to investigate the fundamental problems related to the
    electrostatic beneficiation of coal for cost effective sulfur
    reduction. The results from this project led to the development of a
    new laser based instrument called an Electrostatic Spray Dynamics
    Analyzer (ESDA). It was designed to provide clean coal, by
    electrostatically separating the mineral matter from coal in an
    environmentally safe and economic manner. The instrument measures, in
    real time, the magnitude and polarity of electrostatic charge
    distributions on individual particles in air. No such instrument is
    commercially available and the technological development of this
    project, therefore plays a unique role in applications where
    electrostatic properties of particles are employed. These applications
    include spin-off benefits in the areas of powder coating,
    electrophotography (used in copying machines and laser printers) as
    well as in electrostatic beneficiation of coals and minerals.
        Question. Can you provide for the record some recent examples of
    research supported by the University Coal Research program that has
    proven useful to, or incorporated into, the principal programs of the
    Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development? The HBCU program?
        Answer. Generally, this program's focus is not on technology
    applications but rather on support of basic research that is
    appropriate for masters theses and doctoral dissertations. However,
    there are several notable and promising research projects that have or
    promise to move into further research programs at DOE and industry. Two
    recent examples include the following:
      --A project at Hampton University titled ``Attrition-Resistant Iron-
            Based Fischer Tropsch Catalysts'' is being conducted together
            with the University of Pittsburgh and an industry partner. They
            have developed, and are seeking to patent, a highly successful
            new catalyst formulation. This is a candidate project to be
            incorporated into Fossil Energy's Liquefaction program, should
            funds be available.
      --A North Carolina A&T University presentation at the recent (March
            1999) HBCU Symposium in Miami, Florida, entitled
            ``Dehydrogenation of Cyclohexane in a Palladium-Ceramic
            Membrane Reactor by Equilibrium Shift,'' produced exciting
            results for selective production and removal of H2
            for which patents have been applied. This is an extremely
            important area of research for the Office of Fossil Energy
            since H2 separation is an important enabling
            technology for Fossil Energy's Vision 21 concept.
        Question. What about technologies stemming from this program that
    have been incorporated into actual products currently in the
    marketplace?
        Answer. Though the topics addressed in the annual solicitation for
    the HBCU/OMI program are those that are deemed of specific interest in
    helping the Office of Fossil Energy achieve their research objectives,
    grant awards do not specifically target technology commercialization or
    market entry activities. Instead they support basic research that is
    appropriate for Masters Theses and Doctoral Dissertations.
        Question. Information provided by the Department indicates that a
    portion of Coal Technology Export funds are allocated to non-DOE
    entities such as the Southern States Energy Board, the National
    Association of State Energy Officials, and the United States Energy
    Association. Are these allocations for specific cooperative agreements?
    Dues?
        Answer. All are for cooperative agreements.
        Question. How did these particular entities come to receive these
    funds?
        Answer. They were previously conducting programs funded by states
    and the private sector, which were focused on goals and objectives
    shared by DOE. The Department plans to provide an estimated $325,000 to
    Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) in fiscal year 1999. SSEB is in the
    unique position of being organized specifically to work with the
    legislative industrial and social leaders of the south eastern states
    which represent a major coal producing region. Consequently, they have
    the capability to introduce DOE to key issues, opportunities and
    contacts that have a direct impact on efforts to promote the use of
    coal and coal technology in other countries.
        The Department plans to provide $54,150 to the National Association
    of State Energy Officials (NASEO) to promote peer exchange between U.S.
    and foreign government policy makers relating to information on Coal
    and Power Systems export. NASEO has an existing International PEER
    exchange program in place to facilitate these efforts and, therefore,
    is uniquely qualified to help leverage DOE's program.
        In addition, the Department plans to provided $250,000 to continue
    its cooperative efforts with the United States Energy Association
    (USEA) to promote coordination between the World Energy Conference and
    the International Energy Agency related to improved environmental and
    efficient energy use in China and the Pacific Rim. The USEA has an
    extensive network of cooperative programs with both government and non-
    government organization including the China Utility Partnership
    Program, which provide unique capabilities for disseminating
    information and leveraging resources.
        Question. Is allocation of these funds reevaluated on an annual
    basis?
        Answer. Yes, as a requirement of cooperative agreements, an annual
    evaluation of activities is conducted during the year by DOE.
                        great plains gasification plant
        Question. Last week you announced an agreement under which the
    Department would facilitate the construction of a carbon dioxide
    pipeline from the Great Plains Gasification Facility in North Dakota to
    oil fields in Canada. This pipeline would allow the Great Plains
    facility to sell the carbon dioxide that it produces and use the
    revenues from those sales to keep the facility operational. What is the
    value of the tax credits being used to finance this venture?
        Answer. Dakota Gasification Company has the right to claim
    production tax credits generated by operation of the Great Plains
    project during the period January 1, 1999, through January 1, 2002, in
    an amount not to exceed $270 million. However, Dakota Gasification
    Company may only retain net proceeds (gross proceeds from the sale of
    the credits less applicable income taxes paid by Dakota Gasification
    Company) in an amount equal to 90 percent of the capitalized cost of
    the carbon dioxide pipeline project and 100 percent of the capitalized
    cost to improve the plant's environmental performance. Current
    projections of these costs total $140 million. All net proceeds
    generated in excess of this amount will be returned to the government.
        Question. Why did the Dakota Gasification Company waive its right
    to claim Section 29 tax credits when it purchased the gasification
    plant in 1988?
        Answer. Dakota Gasification Company waived its right to claim
    Section 29 tax credit credits as an element to enhance its offer to
    purchase the gasification plant in 1988. The other finalists in the
    bidding process offered a partial waiver of the Section 29 tax credits.
        Question. Did the waiver of the Section 29 tax credits affect the
    sale price of the facility?
        Answer. The offers to purchase the Great Plains facility had
    several different components which included cash payments, revenue
    sharing, full or partial waivers of Section 29 tax credits, and
    commitments to continued operation. All finalists offered at least a
    partial waiver of the Section 29 tax credits.
        Question. What justification exists to essentially reverse this
    waiver?
        Answer. Substantive potential for plant closure existed in 1998.
    Lower than expected gas and commodity prices jeopardized the prospects
    for long term operation and the return of DOE trust funds as well as
    scheduled settlement payments to DOE. The DOE agreed to make a
    ``limited release'' of the Section 29 tax credit waiver in order to
    provide the necessary capital to construct a project to compress and
    transport carbon dioxide to be used in tertiary recovery of oil and to
    make additional environmental improvements to the Great Plains Synfuels
    Plant. These projects significantly enhance the prospects for long term
    operation of the Great Plains facility while protecting the
    Government's investment and scheduled payments.
        Question. What arrangements exist to guarantee that the value of
    the tax credits used to finance the pipeline will be repaid?
        Answer. Under the terms of the third amendment to the Asset
    Purchase Agreement, Dakota Gasification Company has an obligation to
    make fixed payments totaling $3.3 million annually. In addition,
    effective January 1, 2002, Dakota Gasification Company is obligated to
    pay a variable payment calculated using an applicable percentage of
    positive cash flows.
        Question. Will the CO2 purchaser have a binding legal
    obligation to make the $3.3 million annual payments?
        Answer. PanCanadian, the CO2 purchaser, has an
    obligation to pay Dakota Gasification Company a monthly demand charge.
    Within 10 days of receipt of the monthly demand payments Dakota
    Gasification Company has a binding legal obligation with DOE to make
    the $3.3 million annual payment in monthly installments under the terms
    of the Third Amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement.
        Question. Is there any financial risk to this portion of the deal
    based on possible changes in oil markets, etc.?
        Answer. The CO2 agreement is structured as a long-term
    take-or-pay contract with fixed demand payments as well as levels of
    production. Substantial costs are required to terminate the agreement.
        Question. Will the CO2 demand charges and any positive
    cash flow to Dakota Gasification be deposited in the Treasury, or will
    they be available to the Department of Energy?
        Answer. As with previous receipts (revenue sharing, interest on
    trust accounts, return of principal from trust account funds, and
    settlement payments) the CO2 demand charges and any payments
    to the Department of Energy of applicable percentage of positive cash
    flows will be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts and
    not be available to the Department.
        Question. If no private entity is willing to finance construction
    of the CO2 pipeline, why is the Department of Energy
    fulfilling this role?
        Answer. The prospects for continued operation of the Great Plains
    facility and return of DOE trust funds and scheduled payments to DOE
    were in jeopardy. A restructured and amended agreement established a
    unique funding plan. DOE agreed to let Dakota Gasification Company use
    the previously waived Section 29 tax credits but required that the
    proceeds only be used to finance the CO2 project and to fund
    the additional environmental improvements necessary to resolve the
    environmental issues at the plant. These modifications are subject to a
    repayment mechanism that returns the money lost to the U.S. Treasury
    back to the federal government.
        Question. Is construction and operation of the pipeline expected to
    produce any information of scientific value?
        Answer. The construction and operation of the pipeline for use in
    enhanced oil recovery significantly enhances the prospects for
    continued operation of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. The pipeline
    also develops the capacity for additional enhanced oil recovery
    projects in western North Dakota and Montana. The limited release of
    the section 29 tax credit waiver also provides the funding for
    additional environmental improvements including the installation of a
    wet electrostatic precipitator to resolve pending environmental issues
    and improvements to a first of kind commercial application of an
    ammonia based scrubbing system.
        Question. How specifically does DOE's participation in this project
    relate to the Department's goal and objectives under the Government
    Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. DOE's participation in this project is consistent with
    DOE's strategic goal to promote secure, competitive, and
    environmentally responsible energy systems that serve the needs of the
    public. Specific objectives within this goal include reducing the
    vulnerability of the U.S. economy to disruptions in energy supplies;
    increasing the efficiency and productivity of energy use, while
    limiting environmental impacts; and carrying out information
    collection, analysis, and research that will facilitate development of
    informed positions on long term energy supply and use of alternatives.
    The objectives of the DOE strategic plan are used for reporting results
    under the Government Performance and Results Act.
                              natural gas research
        Question. The budget request includes $1.985 million for methane
    hydrates research. How will these funds be administered?
        Answer. The methane hydrates program will be administered through
    the Office of Fossil Energy (FE). The Office will coordinate its
    activities with the hydrates research and development work of other
    government groups, including the U.S. Geological Survey, Naval Research
    Lab, Minerals Management Service, National Science Foundation, and
    Ocean Drilling Program. In addition, a Management Steering Committee
    (MSC) will be formed, comprising government and private organizations
    that finance methane hydrates research and/or will use the products of
    the program. The MSC will ensure that work under the methane hydrates
    program will complement other work conducted by federal, state, and
    commercial organizations and coordinate with International groups
    conducting hydrates research and development.
        Question. Will the funds be used for in-house work, research
    contracts with other entities, or other types of activities?
        Answer. Funding recipients have not yet been determined but will
    almost certainly include industrial partners; other Government
    organizations (such as the Naval Research Lab, U.S. Geological Survey,
    the Ocean Drilling Program, National Science Foundation, and Minerals
    Management Service); national laboratories; academia and oceanographic
    institutions, including university consortia and the Federal Energy
    Technology Center; and Rocky Mountain Oilfield Test Center. This is
    consistent with the draft Methane Hydrates Research and Development Act
    of 1999, which encourages ``partnerships among government, industry and
    institutions of higher learning.''
        Few, if any, competitive procurements would be possible at the $2
    million funding level, but at higher funding levels anticipated as the
    program matures, open solicitations would be added to the procurement
    mechanisms used to implement the program.
        Question. Given the current state of knowledge regarding methane
    hydrates, could the Department effectively spend more money for
    research in this area if funds were available? If so, how much?
        Answer. Yes, the Department could effectively spend more on methane
    hydrates research in fiscal year 2000. The Department considers the
    fiscal year 2000 Congressional budget request of $1.985 million to be
    the appropriate level of funding. Any proposed funding addition will
    have to be offset by funding reduction elsewhere to maintain the
    discretionary budget cap imposed by the BEA of 1990.
        Question. How would these additional funds be used?
        Answer. While specific procurement plans will not be finalized
    until appropriations have been approved by Congress, the Department
    anticipates that program activities could include the following work,
    depending on the funding level. Most of the funding would be used to
    leverage existing methane hydrates expertise at DOE and other
    government agencies. No competitive solicitations are planned. At the
    proposed $2 million funding level the program would:
      --Initiate databases of hydrate locations and research results,
      --Collect samples and conduct geologic/geophysical studies to define
            the location and quantities of naturally occurring hydrates,
      --Conduct laboratory and modeling studies of hydrate dissociation,
      --Initiate preliminary seismic evaluation of subsea hydrate structure
            and strength, and
      --Monitor subsea hydrate sites.
        At a $10 million funding level, for example the program could also:
      --Conduct laboratory studies of the geologic, geochemical,
            thermodynamic, and acoustic properties of hydrates;
      --Correlate field samples with geologic, geophysical, and geochemical
            data;
      --Develop predictive models of hydrate formation and dissociation;
      --Site selection and test design for onshore production test;
      --Develop preliminary production process models;
      --Monitor dispersed hydrate sites and the geologic record relative to
            methane release; and
      --Assess methane hydrate storage options.
        At the higher funding level, the program would issue competitive
    solicitations for work by academia, national labs and industry.
    Multiple approaches would be pursued and varied sites would be studied.
        Question. Funds are requested in the turbine program for
    investigation of mid-size turbine configurations for use in ``Vision 21
    powerplex applications.'' Does the incorporation of turbines into a
    Vision 21-type power system present large technological hurdles that
    will require significant additional research, or can the use of
    turbines in this fashion be accomplished with relatively little
    reconfiguration?
        Answer. Many of the Vision 21 configurations will present large
    technological hurdles for gas turbine integration. For example, current
    ATS turbines have been developed for operation with natural gas. Vision
    21 systems are intended to be fuel flexible--capable of using coal,
    gas, biomass in combination with other fuels. Further development is
    needed to make advanced turbines compatible with these fuels. Another
    example of a major turbine integration challenge would be associated
    with Vision 21 systems employing fuel cells in a hybrid fashion, which
    constrains operating temperatures, pressures, and mass flows.
    Integrating these hybrid systems with a gasifier will be especially
    challenging.
        To meet the aggressive goals set for Vision 21 systems, significant
    effort will be required in both integration and controls as well as in
    improvements in gas turbine performance. Under the proposed Next-
    Generation Gas Turbine Systems program, enabling technologies and
    products will be developed to support the Vision 21 program. As clear
    goals and objectives emerge from the Vision 21 program, turbine-based
    concepts will be defined that can be integrated into Vision 21 plants.
    Currently, Vision 21 gas turbine based modules are conceptualized as
    High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) and are expected to include
    evaluation of ultra-high efficiency systems such as reheat,
    recouperative cycles, hydrogen turbine systems, and intercooled
    advanced cycle systems, adaptation of improvements made for natural-
    gas-fueled turbines to coal fuels or other opportunistic fuels, and
    development of ultra- high efficiency power modules using novel or
    innovative concepts for combustion or steam power conversion devices.
        Question. Is this likely to be an area requiring significant
    additional resources in future years, or can the adaptation of turbines
    for this purpose be accomplished with relatively little DOE support?
        Answer. Though there are near-term market spinoffs expected from
    the turbine portion of the Vision 21 program (referred to as High
    Efficiency Engines and Turbines or HEET), industry will not be able to
    the support this longer-term research and development effort on their
    own. In addition, market restructuring has all but eliminated public
    utility research and development efforts related to power generation
    equipment. Government/industry partnerships are needed to induce
    manufacturers to invest in technically risky, longer term, research and
    development efforts.
        Question. The request includes $32.59 million for the Advanced
    Turbine Systems program, a decrease of roughly $3 million from fiscal
    year 1999. Assuming Congress provides the requested amount in fiscal
    year 2000, what will likely be the level of the Department's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request for this program?
        Answer. The Department is currently developing its budget proposal
    for fiscal year 2001. It depends on Congressional Appropriations as
    well as other factors. Thus it is almost impossible to speculate on
    fiscal year 2001 funding levels for a program of this magnitude at this
    time.
        Question. In fiscal year 2002? Do we know yet whether the ATS
    technology developed in this program will actually meet or exceed the
    goals established at the outset of the program?
        Answer. Both Siemens-Westinghouse and General Electric expect to
    meet the goals set forth in the ATS program. Test results, to date,
    indicate that they are on track. It is expected that the full-speed,
    no-load tests and full-scale ATS demonstrations (not being fund by DOE)
    will confirm that the ATS program goals have been met. By fiscal year
    2002, we expect that the utility scale testing will have been completed
    successfully, while the base technology program will continue to
    support improvements on turbine blades, address fuel flexibility, with
    a transition to intermediate scale turbine development.
        Question. The amount requested for the Gas-to-Liquids program
    represents a decrease of $1.5 million from the fiscal year 1999 level.
    Is the amount requested sufficient to maintain work on the ITM SynGas
    program in fiscal year 2000 at the level contemplated in the original
    work plan?
        Answer. No, higher levels of funding were estimated in the original
    work plan.
        Question. If not, how much additional funding would be required to
    do so?
        Answer. The Department considers the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request to be the appropriate level of funding. The fiscal year 2000
    budget currently includes $5.1 million to complete Phase I project
    activities that entail selecting a single membrane material composition
    and developing necessary ceramic-to-metal sealing technology. Phase I
    is scheduled to end during the first quarter of fiscal year 2000.
    Additional funds of about $1.5 million would be required to initiate
    Phase II; DOE does not propose to initiate Phase II in fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. What additional work, if any, could be accomplished in
    fiscal year 2000 if additional funds were provided?
        Answer. If additional funds are provided in fiscal year 2000, we
    would put additional funds on the Ionic Transport Membrane (ITM)
    contract. The ITM project is a three phase, $86 million, 8-year,
    competitively-selected effort directed to the development and
    demonstration of selected ceramic membrane(s) to separate oxygen from
    air and enable the precise partial oxidation of natural gas within a
    single reactor to make a ``synthetic gas'' (syngas), which then can be
    converted to a liquid in a second reactor.
        Air Products and Chemical, Inc. (APCI), the prime contractor for
    the effort, and DOE believe that the present Phase I deadline for
    completion of March 30, 2000 will be met. APCI hopes to more quickly
    move into Phase II work (assuming a go-ahead decision by DOE in late
    1999) with the goal of completing the initial, two major ITM-Syngas
    process tests in less time than the present 3\1/2\ year schedule.
        Question. Does the request include any funding in support of the
    alternative gas-to-liquids technology being developed by a university
    team led by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks?
        Answer. No funding has been requested in the fiscal year 2000
    budget for this work because it will be fully funded with fiscal year
    1998 and 1999 appropriations.
        Question. What is the status of funds appropriated to date for this
    project?
        Answer. On April 16, 1999, DOE announced the award of a 2-year,
    $3.1 million university effort in support of BP Amoco's alternative
    approach to one-step oxygen separation and methane partial oxidation.
    DOE will provide $2.5 million to the University of Alaska-Fairbanks for
    the project. The project will also receive $625,000 in private sector
    cost-sharing. Joining the University of Alaska will be the
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Houston, the
    University of Illinois-Chicago, and the University of Missouri-Rolla.
    This project will be fully funded with fiscal year 1998 and 1999
    appropriations.
        Question. The request for the coal mine methane program is level
    with fiscal year 1999. What is the current status of this program?
        Answer. The program is in Phase II which is the design phase of the
    field demonstration of technologies for capturing and using emissions
    from coal mining operations.
        Question. Has there been a downselection of demonstration proposals
    developed in this program?
        Answer. No, downselection has not yet taken place.
        Question. If not, when will this selection be made?
        Answer. Downselection for the field demonstration projects will
    begin in late summer of 1999.
        Question. How many projects is the Department likely to continue
    supporting?
        Answer. The Department plans to choose two projects for field
    demonstration.
        Question. Assuming the amount requested in fiscal year 2000 is
    provided, what will be accomplished in this program in fiscal year
    2000?
        Answer. The program funding for fiscal year 2000 will allow for the
    initial implementation phase of the field demonstrations.
        Question. What is the estimated funding profile for the remainder
    of the program?
        Answer. There will be 50-percent industry cost-sharing with the
    field demonstrations. The estimated funding profile for the remainder
    of the program will be as follows:

            Fiscal year                                               Amount
    2000..........................................................  $500,000
    2001.......................................................... 1,000,000
    2002.......................................................... 1,000,000
    2003.......................................................... 1,000,000

        Question. The request proposes a 75-percent increase in Outreach
    and Technology Transfer within Natural Gas Research, but does not
    explain what the increase will accomplish. Why is this increase
    requested?
        Answer. This modest increase of $187,000 would be used to provide
    independent natural gas producers with better information on current
    and upcoming environmental regulatory issues that affect their
    operations and potentially increase their costs. This outreach will
    include information on compliance, reporting, and permitting
    requirements and will provide training for operators on least-cost,
    environmentally protective methods of compliance. Surveys of operators
    have identified the need for better environmental regulatory and
    compliance information as a top priority need of independent producers.
    It is anticipated that the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council and
    possibly others would implement this environmental outreach effort.
                                   fuel cells
        Question. The request includes $30 million for continued work on
    two molten carbonate fuel cell systems and one tubular solid oxide fuel
    cell system. Assuming the budget request is provided, what will MC
    Power and ERC accomplish in fiscal year 2000 in their molten carbonate
    development programs?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the budget request for Fuel Cells is
    $37,649,000 for the continuation of the three major development
    efforts, plus an additional $4,950,000 is requested in the High
    Efficiency Integrated Gasification/Combined Cycle program for the
    development of advanced fuel cell systems for Vision 21 gasification/
    combustion applications.
        Siemens Westinghouse will test a 250-kilowatt fuel cell turbine
    hybrid system at the National Fuel Cell Research Center in California.
    Siemens Westinghouse will also be involved in development of advanced
    fuel cell systems for Vision 21 gasification/combustion applications.
        ERC plans to complete a 250-kilowatt tall stack test in the grid
    connected mode of operation at ERC's 400-kilowatt test facility, and
    also plans to complete a 2500-kilowatt power plant demonstration at a
    U.S. site. The results of the demonstration will provide the basis for
    a commercial design for a plant in the 250-kilowatt to 3-megawatt size
    range.
        MC Power plans to complete a 250-kilowatt endurance stack test to
    validate the lifetime and performance of stack components that will
    provide the basis of a total plant systems demonstration on the 250- to
    500-kilowatt size.
        Question. What work will likely be done in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. ERC plans to complete the commercial design for a plant in
    the 250-kilowatt to 3-megawatt size range, and plans to conduct a
    megawatt scale power plant test to validate its commercial design. MC
    Power plans to initiate a 250- to 500-kilowatt plant system
    demonstration to validate its commercial design.
        Question. How much has the Department spent thus far on molten
    carbonate fuel cell development?
        Answer. The Department has provided approximately $364.1 million to
    molten carbonate fuel cell developers through 1998 and expects to
    provide an additional $26.3 million in the current fiscal year.
        Question. What is the Department's estimate of when these
    technologies will be ready for market entry?
        Answer. Commercial entry could occur in the 2003 to 2004 time
    frame, following pre-commercial demonstrations and the completion of
    the current projects.
        Question. When does the Department expect to cease supporting these
    two development contracts?
        Answer. The current contracts are scheduled to end in 2002-2003. As
    with many new technologies, the first generation of commercial fuel
    cells (phosphoric acid fuel cells) have encountered significant hurdles
    competing with low cost, albeit less environmentally pristine,
    conventional technology. However, market studies have indicated that
    even with the high initial costs, there are distributed generation
    markets for these fuel cells, particularly in applications where
    premium power (high quality and reliability) is in demand. The next
    generation (molten carbonate and solid oxide) fuel cells ought to be
    more economically attractive, but significant cost reduction will be
    needed to enable the capture of major market shares. DOE is currently
    assessing the need for an advanced program focused on major reductions
    in cost for fuel cell and balance of plant components.
        Question. Does the Department intend to downselect to one molten
    carbonate contractor during fiscal year 1999 or 2000? If not, why not?
    If so, when?
        Answer. A decision to downselect to one molten carbonate contractor
    has not been made, but that option will be considered in the course of
    a periodic process for evaluating the progress of each of the fuel cell
    developers and their ability to provide their cost share. DOE will
    initiate such a review at the end of May 1999, and a determination
    concerning downselection will occur at that time.
        Question. What would likely become of the technology and data
    developed with DOE support under the terminated contract?
        Answer. The outcome depends on specific contract provisions,
    whether the contractor is a small business or a large business, and the
    value of the technology and data. By statute, small businesses get an
    automatic right to retain title to their inventions and there is no
    specific requirement to obtain DOE's approval to transfer those rights
    to another entity, including a foreign entity. However, the entity
    receiving those rights can only exercise them subject to statutory
    requirements that apply to small businesses, including a requirement
    that products for use or sale in the United States must be
    substantially manufactured in the United States. No such requirement
    applies for use or sale outside the United States.
        Large businesses must obtain a waiver of patent rights from DOE in
    order to retain rights to inventions made with Government funding (that
    is, subject inventions). Advanced waiver clauses require DOE approval
    before transferring patent rights to a foreign company. The large
    business and any entity to which it would transfer patent rights must
    substantially manufacture in the United States and products for use or
    sale in the United States. Violation of this requirement subjects the
    contractor to repay all funds provided by DOE and either license
    subject inventions to a third party U.S.-owned entity who agrees to
    commercialize the technology or return title to subject inventions to
    DOE. There are additional requirements to license background patents
    necessary to practice the technology to the third parties.
        The fuel cell awards also have adequate recognition provisions
    requiring DOE approval of any contract, license, or other agreement
    that transfers fuel cell technology developed at least, in part, with
    government funding to a foreign entity. However, it is not known
    whether adequate recognition provisions are enforceable against a small
    business because there is no such restriction in the statute that gives
    small businesses title to their inventions.
        The contractor can use the data developed under the government
    award for its private purposes as long as its reporting requirements to
    the government have been met. These fuel cell contractors have the
    ability to withhold certain information from public disclosure for up
    to 5 years under the Energy Policy Act. However, there is nothing to
    prevent the contractor from transferring such data under confidential
    arrangements to a foreign entity. The only contractual restrictions on
    the contractor's private use of the data are related to patent and
    security issues, and these restrictions are not likely to impede the
    flow of data to a foreign entity.
        The current value of the technology would be a factor in
    determining whether the contractor would attempt to sell the technology
    and data, and what options DOE might choose to exercise to prevent a
    significant loss of the U.S. taxpayer's investments and loss of the
    technology.
        Question. Have the three principal contractors in the fuel cell
    program each lived up to the cost sharing requirements of their
    individual research agreements?
        Answer. Yes, the principal contractors have lived up to the cost
    sharing requirements. Earlier in this fiscal year, MC Power began to
    fall behind in meeting their cost-share requirements. DOE slowed the
    obligation of funding until the delinquency was corrected. MC Power is
    currently meeting the cost-share requirements.
        Question. Is the Department confident these cost sharing
    requirements will be met in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Yes, at this time we are confident.
        Question. Has the Department yet made a decision whether to proceed
    to Budget Period 4 of the research program with MC Power? If not, when
    will this decision be made? Is so, what is the decision and the nature
    of the arrangement for Budget Period 4?
        Answer. No, the Department has funded the cost overrun in Budget
    Period 3. Depending on the progress made in Budget Period 3, a decision
    will be made whether or not to fund Budget Period 4. This decision will
    be made by late spring of 1999.
        Question. How has the Department acted to protect the federal
    investment in the fuel cell program as a result of the Siemens-
    Westinghouse merger?
        Answer. Siemens-Westinghouse has agreed to a provision to ensure
    the United States obtains Adequate Recognition. A specific contractual
    clause requires the substantial manufacture of technology first
    developed under DOE's program in the United States and provides for
    verification. In the event that Siemens-Westinghouse does not
    substantially manufacture in the United States, Siemens-Westinghouse
    must repay the U.S. government all monies, with appropriate interest,
    granted to them.
                                 oil technology
        Question. The 1998 Strategic Plan for the Office of Fossil Energy
    sets a goal of stopping the decline in domestic oil production by 2005,
    and increasing production by 500,000 barrels per day by 2010. Is it
    possible to achieve this goal if oil prices remain as low as they are
    currently?
        Answer. No, if oil prices remain below about $14 per barrel, we
    believe that it will not be possible to arrest the decline in domestic
    oil production by 2005, and to increase the production by 500,000
    barrels per day by 2010. The sharp decline in oil prices caused DOE
    concern about achieving the stated goal. Therefore, we have initiated
    the Preferred Petroleum Upstream Management Practices (PUMP) program,
    starting with $500,000 requested in fiscal year 2000.
        The original PUMP program was designed to supplement existing DOE
    mid- and long-term research and development through the involvement of
    the nation's oil technology experts in industry, government, and
    academia. The program would focus on integrated and expedited
    application of advanced technologies through field demonstrations, best
    practices, and resolution of environmental and regulatory constraints.
    Strategies are threefold: use known technology mechanisms; regional
    approaches; and integrated solutions to technology, regulatory and data
    constraints.
        Question. Is the additional production needed to achieve this goal
    likely to come predominantly from enhancements to existing wells and
    fields, or from development of new fields?
        Answer. The additional production needed to achieve this goal would
    come mostly from enhancements to existing wells and fields (about 75
    percent of total), and also from the development of new fields and
    field extensions (about 25 percent of total). Additional oil production
    from enhancements to existing wells and fields will result from
    improved oil recovery technologies, and field demonstration of
    technologies, such as the Reservoir Class program. Additional
    production from new fields will result from research on sophisticated
    computational techniques needed for much more accurate reservoir
    characterization and interpretation of seismic data, such as subsalt
    imaging in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Question. Oil development on the North Slope presents a number of
    challenges. What work is being done in the Oil Technology program that
    would lower the cost of recovering heavy oil in locations such as the
    North Slope?
        Answer. The currently ongoing research that directly relates to the
    recovery of heavy oil and that has potential for lowering the cost of
    recovering heavy oil in locations such as the North Slope are as
    follows:
      --Modification of Chemical and Physical Factors in Steam Floods to
            Increase Heavy Oil Recovery (University of Southern California)
      --Quantitative Methods for Reservoir Characterization and Improved
            Recovery: Application to Heavy Oil Sands/Fundamental Geoscience
            Awards (Clemson University)
      --North slope Heavy Oil Recovery (CRADA with BP Exploration, Inc.,
            BDM International)
      --Heavy Oil Recovery Mechanisms (Stanford University, ARCO, Chevron,
            Texaco, INTEVEP, Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Elf)
      --Transport and Phase Equilibria Properties for Steam Flooding of
            Heavy Oils (Prairie View University HBCU grant)
      --Reactivation of an Idle Lease to Increase Heavy oil Recovery
            through Application of Conventional Steam Drive Technology,
            Reservoir Class III (University of Utah, ARCO Western, Utah
            Geological Survey)
      --Increasing Heavy Oil Reserves in the Wilmington Oil Field through
            Advanced Reservoir Characterization and Thermal Production
            Technologies, (Reservoir Class III)
      --Removal of Heteroatoms and Metals from Heavy Oils by Bioconversion
            Processes (Texaco, Exxon, Unocal, Energy Biosystems, Baker
            Chemicals, Chevron)
      --Fundamental Chemistry of Heavy Oil Thermodynamics (Oak Ridge
            National Laboratory)
        Past research that directly relates to heavy oil recovery in areas
    such as Alaska, includes the development and demonstration of double
    insulated tubing for steam injection and a downhole steam generator.
    Both are important in areas where permafrost is encountered and both
    were commercialized, but not widely used due to low oil prices.
        Question. In what program elements is this work being performed and
    with what research partners?
        Answer. Projects 1 through 5 below are performed under the
    Exploration and Production Supporting Research; projects 6 and 7 are
    performed under the Recovery Field Demonstration, and; projects 8 and 9
    are performed under Effective Environmental Protection.
      --Modification of Chemical and Physical Factors in Steam Floods to
            Increase Heavy Oil Recovery (University of Southern California)
      --Quantitative Methods for Reservoir Characterization and Improved
            Recovery: Application to Heavy Oil Sands/Fundamental Geoscience
            Awards (Clemson University)
      --North slope Heavy Oil Recovery (CRADA with BP Exploration, Inc.,
            BDM International)
      --Heavy Oil Recovery Mechanisms (Stanford University, ARCO, Chevron,
            Texaco, INTEVEP, Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Elf)
      --Transport and Phase Equilibria Properties for Steam Flooding of
            Heavy Oils (Prairie View University HBCU grant)
      --Reactivation of an Idle Lease to Increase Heavy oil Recovery
            through Application of Conventional Steam Drive Technology,
            Reservoir Class III (University of Utah, ARCO Western, Utah
            Geological Survey)
      --Increasing Heavy Oil Reserves in the Wilmington Oil Field through
            Advanced Reservoir Characterization and Thermal Production
            Technologies (Reservoir Class III)
      --Removal of Heteroatoms and Metals from Heavy Oils by Bioconversion
            Processes (Texaco, Exxon, Unocal, Energy Biosystems, Baker
            Chemicals, Chevron)
      --Fundamental Chemistry of Heavy Oil Thermodynamics (Oak Ridge
            National Laboratory)
        Past research that directly relates to heavy oil recovery in areas
    such as Alaska, includes the development and demonstration of double
    insulated tubing for steam injection and a downhole steam generator.
    Both are important in areas where permafrost is encountered and both
    were commercialized, but not widely used due to low oil prices.
        Question. Are there particular problems associated with directional
    drilling and other advanced drilling technology in Arctic conditions?
        Answer. Yes, all drilling projects--vertical and directional--must
    address problems associated with the surface location in addition to
    problems associated with the subsurface reservoir. Drilling projects
    must address diverse, often extreme, surface environments, numerous
    species of wildlife, wilderness, sparse population, remoteness, and
    limited infrastructure: offshore extremes from arctic to subarctic
    climates; earthquakes and associated tsunamis; volcanic activity that
    can result in dust fallout, toxic gases, land slides, floods, tidal
    waves, or other associated hazards. Commercial fishing is an important
    industry in Alaska, and offshore oil exploration must be conducted in a
    manner which does not interfere with these activities. Other challenges
    on the surface which must be met by operators drilling in the Alaska
    offshore areas include: extreme wave heights and long wave periods;
    high tides, high currents, and strong winds; intense storms; the
    remoteness of the Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea; temperatures and
    associated conditions require the use of special steels, safety
    devices, and procedures for the protection of personnel and equipment;
    and annual sea ice and pack ice dictate seasonal operations or drilling
    and production structures. Downhole, there are other issues being
    addressed, such as the following:
      --Refrigerated mud systems are necessary when drilling in areas with
            permafrost;
      --An independent third party review is required for new or untried
            technology;
      --Real-time well control equipment and technology, and improved
            accuracy and sophistication of equipment for monitoring of
            wellbore and drill string parameters provide early warning of
            abnormal down hole conditions;
      --Computer application and automation of safety sensing devices and
            equipment; prediction or detection of abnormal pressure through
            seismic data analysis or drilling measurements, automated drill
            pipe handling equipment, and top drive or improved rotary
            swivel equipment;
      --Avoidance of wellbore collision in areas of high well density; and
      --The use of new wells versus sidetracks; conventional rotary rigs
            versus coiled tubing drilling unit, horizontal and/or high
            angle completion profiles versus vertical, short radius
            directional build profiles versus medium radius; slotted liner
            completions versus solid and selectively perforated casing,
            chrome production tubing versus carbon-steel tubing, thru-
            tubing rotary drilling and multi-lateral well designs, ultra-
            slim diameter mud-pulse-telemetry directional drilling tool for
            application through 3\1/2\-inch tubulars to drill directionally
            steered 2\3/4\-inch boreholes at Prudhoe Bay using coiled
            tubing as a directional extension of the horizontal section
            below the existing 3\1/2\-inch tubing string.
        Question. If so, are these problems the focus of any work being
    performed in the Oil Technology program?
        Answer. Yes, the Department's Oil Advanced Drilling, Completion and
    Stimulation program includes investigation of problems associated with
    surface conditions including miniaturization of equipment both uphole
    and downhole, and problems associated with the reservoir environments
    encountered during the drilling phase. The program includes the
    following projects which have application to drilling in Arctic
    regions:
      --Fiber Optic Sensor Technology Development--optical fiber sensors
            for the measurement of pressure, temperature, flow, and
            acoustic waves.
      --Stimulation Research--investigation of advanced acidization
            treatments, formation consolidation techniques, microbial
            processes, formation fracturing, and real time seismic data
            acquisition.
      --Optimization of Horizontal Well Completion--development of
            guidelines and software to optimize the horizontal well
            performance.
      --Compact Three-phase Separator--to reduce the amount of surface area
            needed for fluid separation operations on offshore platforms or
            onshore situations benefitting from extremely small footprint.
      --Advanced Cuttings Transport Facility--assessment of the ability of
            aerated and compressible drilling fluids to transport cuttings
            under various conditions of high temperature and pressure.
      --Tulsa University Drilling Research Program--acquisition of results
            of experimentation on the ability of aerated and compressible
            drilling fluids to transport cuttings under conditions of low
            temperature and pressure.
      --Wellbore Stability and Heat Flow--experimentation and data
            collection for use in predictive models that will assist in
            basin development.
        Question. A number of refineries in the United States have been
    operating under EPA waivers for sulfur dioxide emissions. That waiver
    will soon expire, which may have a severe impact on smaller refineries
    that cannot afford costly equipment to reduce emissions. What
    technologies are being developed to lower the cost of reducing sulfur
    dioxide emissions?
        Answer. There are several commercial technologies that are
    available to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from refineries. These
    technologies are constantly being improved by their developer. The most
    utilized technology is the Claus process. To achieve lower emissions of
    sulfur, two other methods are being used, enhanced Claus conversion
    (for example, BSF, Selectox, Sulfreen, Cold Bed Absorption, Maxisulf,
    and IFP-1 processes) and gas scrubbing (for example, SCOT and Beavon
    processes).
        Question. What departmental programs are supporting this type of
    work?
        Answer. There are no programs which are intended to directly
    support developing technology for capturing SO2 emissions
    from refineries. The Environmental Systems program has developed a
    number of systems for reducing SO2 emissions from coal fired
    power plants and this research is ongoing. Some of this technology may
    be useful for reducing SO2 emitted from refineries also.
        Question. A $500,000 increase is requested for Analysis and
    Planning in the Exploration and Production Supporting Research program,
    but the justification does not explain the purpose of the increase. Why
    are the additional funds necessary?
        Answer. The additional funds will be used to improve the oil and
    gas models used by Fossil Energy. These models are used to assess the
    costs and benefits of competing RD&D initiatives to help pick the most
    beneficial RD&D; to provide metrics to identify the benefits of oil and
    gas programs as part of the presentation of the budgets; and to assess
    the costs and benefits of wide-ranging policy initiatives affecting the
    petroleum industry to support DOE, the Administration, and Congress in
    determining the relative merits of these proposed policies.
        The additional $500,000 requested will be used to: integrate the
    oil and gas models that are currently separate, and add modules for
    offshore, environmental regulations and costs, and downstream
    operations. These improvements will allow the integrated model to more
    accurately simulate how the industry operates in terms of having an
    integrated perspective on oil and gas development. They will also give
    the program the ability to better model new or evolving areas of the
    program--that is, offshore, environmental, and downstream. This will
    provide significant benefits in all three model applications described
    in the previous paragraph.
        Question. What would be the impact if the increase were not
    provided?
        Answer. The immediate and ongoing impact would be the loss of the
    information that comes from these models as described in the three
    types of model applications outlined previously. This information is
    vital to all aspects of the oil and gas programs in terms of providing
    information on the best RD&D paths to choose, metrics information to
    supplement the budget process, and information to support DOE's wide-
    ranging policy initiatives. These policy initiatives include:
    environmental issues, financial and tax issues affecting the industry,
    and impacts of federal lands development policies on the domestic
    petroleum industry.
        The longer-term impact would be that, it will be more expensive to
    do these model improvements in the future then it would be to do them
    now. This is because this model development process has been underway
    since 1998 and a group of knowledgeable modeling experts have been
    assembled and trained to do this work. Right now these modelers can do
    this work with maximum efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If this work
    is not funded now those modelers will be moved to other work. Then, if
    it is decided these model improvements should be made some time in the
    future new modelers may have to be assembled and trained, or if the
    same modelers are available, they will have lost the level of knowledge
    they currently have on the workings of the models and will have to be
    retrained.
        Finally, while this is a $500,000 increase in the Analysis and
    Planning budget as compared to the 1999 budget ($3.7 versus $3.2
    million), this is only a $200,000 increase in budget as compared to the
    1998 budget when this modeling initiative began ($3.7 versus $3.5
    million).
        Question. The Department will continue to provide funding for the
    Petroleum Technology Transfer Council in fiscal year 2000. Was it
    originally intended that the Council eventually would become self-
    supporting and not rely on Department of Energy funds?
        Answer. The Council was first funded in fiscal year 1993 with the
    intention that after 5 years full support would come from industry.
        Question. If so, when were federal appropriations for the Council
    to cease according to the original program plan?
        Answer. The original plan was to provide federal support for a 5-
    year period, with DOE providing most of the funding for the first few
    years. Because of budget constraints, DOE funding for the first 5-year
    period was significantly below the proposed levels. This resulted in a
    longer than anticipated time frame to set up the Council structure.
        Question. What is the current projection of when federal support
    for the Council will cease?
        Answer. The current grant to the Council started May 1998 and ends
    May 2003. At the end of the current grant the Department will evaluate
    the need to continue supporting the Council. Continuation of support
    will depend on the need for the type services that the Council provides
    toward meeting the Department's mission and the ability of the Council
    to remain a strong technology transfer organization to the industry
    without federal support. The Council has been an economical and
    effective tool supporting the Department in meeting its mission by
    assisting in the dissemination of technology developed by the
    Department's research and development programs to the independent
    petroleum producing community.
                               program direction
        Question. The justification indicated that roughly $7.5 million
    will be allocated in fiscal year 2000 for the SBIR and STTR programs.
    How are these funds allocated each year?
        Answer. These funds are set aside, by law, as a percentage of the
    extramural budget (funds other than those used for in house research or
    for salaries). The SBIR offset is 2.5 percent and the percentage of
    funds for STTR programs is 0.15 percent. The funds are then competed.
        Question. What are some examples of the types of activities funded,
    and their relationship to Fossil Energy Research and Development
    program goals?
        Answer. These activities are designed to provide broad support to
    Fossil Energy Research and Development program goals. For Example, the
    SBIR topics are coal and gas turbine systems, and recovery and
    utilization of fossil fuels in SBIR; the STTR topics are
    instrumentation for sampling, measuring and monitoring green house
    gases, coal-fired related pollutants and hydrogen.
        Question. The justification indicates that four additional FTE's
    will be supported in fiscal year 2000 at the National Petroleum
    Technology Office. What is the rationale for these additional
    positions?
        Answer. With the closing of the National Institute for Petroleum
    and Energy Research (NIPER), the workload for the former Bartlesville
    federal employees now located in Tulsa, has increased significantly. In
    order to alleviate some strain on the staff, four federal employees
    from the Elk Hills California Oil Field site were transferred to Tulsa.
    These employees are very knowledgeable of oil industry activities and
    of the Department of Energy.
                        advanced metallurgical processes
        Question. It has been several years since the Albany Research
    Center was transferred from the Bureau of Mines to the Department of
    Energy. Has the transition been successful from the point of view of
    the Fossil Research and Development program?
        Answer. Yes, the program at ARC has been successfully redirected to
    address Fossil Energy research and development needs. This has been
    made possible by extending the cross-cutting research expertise and
    capabilities resident at ARC. In addition, the Fossil Energy research
    efforts at ARC are being effectively leveraged throughout a number of
    other program offices in DOE.
        Question. Is the transition complete?
        Answer. Yes, as new Fossil Energy research program needs developed
    and emerged, and partnership opportunities presented themselves during
    the past three years, appropriate mission priorities at ARC were
    realigned and refocused. Today all activities in the Advanced
    Metallurgical Processes program support Fossil Energy research and
    development goals.
        Question. Does the work currently being performed at the ARC
    directly support the goals of the Fossil Energy Research and
    Development program?
        Answer. Yes, as examples, two primary cooperative research
    opportunities addressing needs associated with the Vision 21 EnergyPlex
    were identified within Fossil Energy and research was initiated at ARC
    late in fiscal year 1998. Those two technology efforts consist of
    gasifier refractory materials research and mineral carbonation for
    CO2 sequestration research. Support from the Coal Technology
    Research and Development-Advanced Research and Technology Development
    and from the Advanced Power Systems programs is being matched with
    Advanced Metallurgical Processes funding in pursuit of this work during
    fiscal year 1999 and is expected to continue into fiscal year 2000 for
    both of these research areas. Continued and further coordination of the
    ARC program with Fossil Energy research and development goals is being
    accomplished through ARC participation on the Advanced Research Product
    Team at the FETC. It is anticipated that ARC will continue to be a
    significant contributor to critical materials enabling technologies
    needed for future Fossil Energy systems.
        Question. What about other DOE programs?
        Answer. The Albany Research Center's (ARC) approach for integration
    into its parent Office of Fossil Energy includes efforts at
    establishing partnerships with other offices within the Department of
    Energy (DOE) where ARC's core capabilities are relevant and applicable.
    ARC is attempting to create a balanced approach to this integration by
    developing a research portfolio which complements both the Office of
    Fossil Energy and also other offices within the DOE, while at the same
    time retaining current private sector and other government customers.
    An underlying corollary to this strategy is the identification of
    potential future customers having needs which can be met under the
    umbrella of the adaptable and flexible core capabilities of the Center.
    Currently, it is anticipated that ARC will play a significant role in
    the joint Fossil Energy/Energy Efficiency Mining Initiative.
        Question. How much work for others is currently being performed at
    ARC?
        Answer. Research efforts for organizations other than DOE (both
    public and private) is currently being conducted through 19 agreements
    representing a total of $370,000. Work for other DOE offices includes
    EE-OIT for $350,000 and EE-OTT for $225,000. In addition, research is
    being conducted for other programs within Fossil Energy for a total
    value of $600,000.
        Question. What is the total operating budget for ARC in fiscal year
    1999?
        Answer. The total operating budget for ARC in fiscal year 1999,
    excluding specific directed ES&H activities, is $7,300,000.
        Question. How many personnel are currently employed at ARC?
        Answer. Currently 83 personnel are employed at ARC representing an
    FTE level of approximately 81.
                             clean coal technology
        Question. The budget requests a $256 million deferral in Clean Coal
    Technology appropriations. Will this deferral, if enacted, have any
    impact on any remaining go/no-go decisions for projects remaining in
    the program?
        Answer. If the proposed deferral is enacted, it will not impact
    remaining go/no-go decisions. The two projects with remaining go/no-go
    decisions are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an Integrated
    Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) planned for Illinois and the Clean
    Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a combined
    steel making and power generation project planned for Utah. For the
    Clean Energy project, the Department recently approved a re-siting of
    the project to Carbondale, Illinois and a restructuring of the team
    members. For the CPICOR project, an extension was necessary due to a
    change in the technology vendor. The next decision point for both of
    these projects is in December 2000, at the start of the construction
    phase. The proposed deferral includes a specific schedule for the
    return of deferred funds that will enable the Department to meet
    funding commitments for these two projects.
        Question. Will the deferral have any impact on outstanding
    decisions on whether to approve project re-siting proposals?
        Answer. The Department recently approved a re-siting/restructuring
    proposal for the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an Integrated
    Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) planned for Carbondale, Illinois.
    The only CCT project without a firm site is the Commercial
    Demonstration of the NOXSO NOX/SO2 Removal Flue
    Gas Cleanup System. The participant for the NOXSO project is in Chapter
    11 Bankruptcy. A suitable host site and participant financing is
    required for this project to continue. Since the full DOE-commitment
    for this project has been obligated, the proposed deferral would not
    impact on the decision to proceed with this project.
        Question. Please provide for the record a description of all
    projects remaining in the program for which go/no-go decisions remain
    to be made, or for which project re-siting is under discussion.
        Answer. There are two projects with remaining go/no-go decisions.
    These projects are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project and the Clean
    Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project. Both of
    these projects are in the design phase with construction scheduled to
    begin in December 2000. Project re-siting is required for the
    Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO NOX/SO2
    Removal Flue Gas Cleanup System to proceed. The participant for the
    NOXSO project is currently in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A suitable host
    site and participant financing is required for the NOXSO project to
    continue.
        The CPICOR project will demonstrate the integration of a direct
    iron-making process with the co-production of electricity using various
    U.S. coals in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner. The
    project will be located at the Geneva Steel facility in Vineyard, Utah.
    The project will utilize the HIsmelt Technology for producing
    direct reduced iron (DRI) and the high temperature but low Btu by-
    product gases from HIsmelt will be used to generate electricity. The
    technology is ideal for both basic oxygen furnace and electric arc
    furnace steel makers and will handle a wide range of ores and coals.
        The Clean Energy project will demonstrate the commercial scale-up
    of the British Gas/Lurgi (BG/L) slagging, fixed-bed gasifier with
    combined-cycle power generation. In addition, the operation of a molten
    carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) on coal gas will be demonstrated. The BG/L
    gasifier utilizes steam, oxygen, limestone flux, and coal to produce a
    coal gas that is cooled and cleaned prior to combustion in a turbine to
    produce electricity. The project will be located at AMEREN
    Corporation's Grand Tower Station in Carbondale, Illinois. The AMEREN
    Corporation intends to provide a 50-percent ownership position in the
    project and provides financial strength and the ability to market the
    electricity.
        The NOXSO project will utilize a dry, regenerable system capable of
    removing both NOX and SO2 in flue gas from coal-
    fired utility boilers burning medium- to high-sulfur coals. In the
    process, flue gas passes through a fluidized-bed adsorber containing a
    sorbent for capturing NOX and SO2. The captured
    NOX is released back to the boiler where equilibrium
    processes cause destruction of the NOX. The captured
    SO2 is recovered from the sorbent and used to produce
    elemental sulfur that can be processed to produce liquid
    SO2, a saleable by-product. The process is expected to
    achieve SO2 reductions of 98 percent and NOX
    reductions of 75 percent.
        In addition to these go/no-go decisions, the Department anticipates
    requests to share in project cost growth for the Wabash River Coal
    Gasification Repowering Project and the Self-Scrubbing Coal: An
    Integrated Approach to Clean Air project.
        Question. Please provide for the record the 5-Year Obligation
    Timing Profile for the program.
        Answer. The 5-Year Obligation Timing Profile for the Clean Coal
    program is in the table on the following page.

                                 CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM--FISCAL YEAR 2000--5 YEAR OBLIGATION TIMING PROFILE
                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Fiscal years--                                         Remaining
                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- obligations
                        Project                                                                                                                     fiscal
                                                        1998         1999          2000          2001         2002         2003         2004     years 1999-
                                                                                                                                                     2004
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clean energy..................................  ...........  ............  ............      152,241  ...........        5,389       21,803      179,434
    CPICOR........................................  ...........  ............  ............      135,662  ...........        4,969  ...........      140,631
    Wabash \1\....................................  ...........        9,000   ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        9,000
    McIntosh 4B...................................       95,672  ............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    McIntosh 4A...................................       87,295  ............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Thermochem....................................        2,799  ............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project Total...........................      185,766        9,000   ............      287,903  ...........       10,358       21,803      329,065
    Program Direction.............................       15,000       14,900        14,399        13,919       13,459       13,019       11,597       81,294
                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Obligations.......................      200,766       23,900        14,399       301,822       13,459       23,378       33,401      410,358
                                                   =========================================================================================================
    FY99 Budget (105-277).........................  ...........      (40,000)       10,000        15,000       15,000  ...........  ...........  ...........
    FY00 Request (BA).............................  ...........  ............     (256,000)      189,000       40,000       27,000  ...........  ...........
    EOY Unobligated...............................      424,174      360,274        99,875         2,053       43,594       47,216       13,815  ...........
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Remaining obligation requirement shown is for an anticipated cost growth that would require ASFE approval. DOE has obligated all currently committed
      funds.

        Question. What are the principal technology benefits of the two
    Clean Coal projects for which major obligations remain?
        Answer. The two Clean Coal Technology projects that have major
    funding requirements are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an
    Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle (IGCC) planned for Illinois and
    the Clean Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a
    combined steel making and power generation project planned for Utah.
    The British Gas/Lurgi (BG/L) technology being demonstrated in the Clean
    Energy project is a needed addition to the other gasification
    technologies being demonstrated in the CCT program. The BG/L gasifier
    offers the highest cold gas efficiency (over 90 percent) of any coal
    gasification technology. The gasifier does not require elaborate coal
    feed and handling systems, as the preferred coal size is 3 inches and
    has the lowest oxygen requirements of any ``modern'' gasification
    process because of the moderate operating temperature of the gasifier.
    Environmental performance of the BG/L gasifier is expected to be
    superior to other gasifiers or among the best performing. The BG/L
    gasifier in an IGCC system can potentially offer the lowest capital and
    operating costs and highest performance of any of the existing gasifier
    technologies. Also, the integration of a molten carbonate fuel cell
    with the IGCC technology will assist in establishing the foundation for
    high efficiency, Vision 21-type EnergyPlex plants of the future.
        The CPICOR project will demonstrate the HIsmelt
    Technology for producing direct reduced iron (DRI) with the co-
    production of electricity. The principal benefit of the direct-iron
    making technology is the elimination of the need for coke in the iron-
    making process. The HIsmelt process is capable of producing
    high-quality pig iron (over 95 percent iron) by simply mixing run-of-
    mine ores and coals in a smelter furnace. No coke, sinter, or pellets
    are required as in a conventional blast furnace. A variety of coal
    types and ore grades can be used in the process. The direct iron-making
    process offers improved economics and reduced emissions over the
    conventional coke oven and blast furnace technology.
        Question. Do the technologies to be demonstrated in these projects
    (projects for which major obligations remain) represent entirely new
    technologies, or are they variations on technologies previously
    demonstrated within the Clean Coal program?
        Answer. The two Clean Coal Technology projects that have major
    funding requirements are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an
    Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle (IGCC) planned for Illinois and
    the Clean Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a
    combined steel making and power generation project planned for Utah.
        The British Gas/Lurgi technology to be demonstrated in the Clean
    Energy project is the fourth utility-scale gasification technology in
    the Clean Coal program. While all four projects are IGCC systems, each
    project demonstrates unique gasification and coal-gas cleanup
    technologies. Since gasification technology is viewed as one of the
    most promising electric power generation options for the future, it is
    vital to demonstrate the leading gasification technologies in a
    commercial operating environment to enable comparisons of performance,
    reliability, and economics.
        The direct iron-making process along with the co-production of
    electricity to be demonstrated in the CPICOR project is unique in the
    Clean Coal program. There have been two other projects awarded in this
    program relating to the use of coal in the steel industry. The
    Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for Retrofit Applications
    demonstrated an innovative process for removing hydrogen sulfide and
    ammonia from coke oven gas generated in the production of coke used in
    blast furnaces. The project withdrew from the Clean Coal program when
    coke-making operations were suspended at the host site. The Blast
    Furnace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration project involved
    the use of both granulated and pulverized coal as a blast furnace fuel
    supplement and began operation in late 1995. The coal-injection
    technology reduced the use of coke in the blast furnace but did not
    eliminate its use and did not offer the co-production of electricity.
    While both of these projects were in the steel industry, they were
    completely different technologies than what is planned for the CPICOR
    project.
        Question. As the Clean Coal program winds down, how does the
    Department intend to handle the reduction in personnel supported by CCT
    funds?
        Answer. The Department intends to manage reductions in Clean Coal
    Technology personnel by absorbing those reductions within the overall
    staffing levels provided for Fossil Energy programs under the Strategic
    Alignment Initiatives. Under this approach the CCT personnel would be
    reduced through attrition and transfers to other Fossil Energy
    programs.
        Question. Are all of these personnel likely to be absorbed into
    other Fossil programs through normal attrition and vacancies?
        Answer. The Department anticipates that most of the Clean Coal
    Technology personnel will be absorbed into other Fossil programs
    through the savings achieved under the Strategic Alignment Initiatives.
    Certain Clean Coal Technology activities, such as those related with
    recoupment, will continue for some time beyond the end of the program.
                          strategic petroleum reserve
        Question. You recently announced your intention to use existing
    authorities to use royalty oil to add 28 million barrels to the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Would you provide for the record the
    statutes that provide you with the legal authority to fill the Reserve
    in this manner?
        Answer. The authority to use royalty oil to fill the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve exists both in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
    and in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Section 160 (a)(2) of the
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6240) authorizes the
    Secretary of Energy to place in storage, transport or exchange crude
    oil which the United States is entitled to receive in kind as royalties
    from production on federal lands. Section 27(a)(3) of the Outer
    Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353) authorizes the Secretary
    of the Interior to transfer any royalty oil to the Secretary of Energy
    for disposal within the federal government.
        Question. Because the royalty oil being diverted to the Reserve
    would otherwise take the form of a cash royalty payment to the
    Treasury, this proposal will in fact have a cost. Does the use of
    royalty oil in this manner lower OMB's receipts estimates?
        Answer. At the time this initiative was announced, the
    Administration estimated that the Treasury would forego about $370
    million in cash royalty receipts due to this transfer of royalty oil.
    This revenue impact would be spread across fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
    Since that initial estimate, oil prices have increased due to eventual
    impact on the Treasury could be larger.
        Question. Does the use of royalty oil in this fashion manifest
    itself in federal bookkeeping in any manner?
        Answer. Yes, at the time the oil is transferred from the Department
    of the Interior to the Department of Energy and becomes part of the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve it has a market value. That value will be
    entered into the Department of Energy balance sheet for the Reserve
    that is reported annually as the DOE Accountability Report.
        Question. If not, why not fill the Reserve to capacity in this
    manner?
        Answer. In its Statement of Policy on the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve issued in May 1998, the Administration determined to conduct a
    study of the Reserve's appropriate size prior to year 2000. That study
    is scheduled for completion this summer. The appropriate method of
    financing inventory expansion would be addressed only if the
    Administration concludes that it should increase the inventory of the
    Reserve above 590 million barrels. However, it is true that use of
    royalty-in-kind oil does have a cost and this would be considered in
    the event that further expansion of SPR was appropriate.
        Question. The budget request includes $5 million for the SPR
    Petroleum Account to bolster emergency drawdown readiness. What is the
    current unobligated balance in the SPR Petroleum Account?
        Answer. The unobligated balance in the SPR Petroleum Account at the
    end of fiscal year 1998 was $33,018,989.
        Question. What is the total amount required to meet 100 percent of
    anticipated emergency drawdown requirements?
        Answer. The estimate to sustain a full 6-month drawdown capability
    is $60,516,000. A maximum rate drawdown requires staff augmentation in
    New Orleans and the sites, an increase in maintenance workload,
    additional posting hours for security subcontractor personnel, and
    significantly higher power costs at the sites. Additionally,
    terminalling/throughput charges are required for pipeline and marine
    deliveries.
        Question. Would the need for additional readiness appropriations
    for the SPR account be obviated if the Department had a mechanism
    whereby it could borrow from the Treasury to cover the costs of a
    drawdown during the fourth quarter of a fiscal year, then repay such
    borrowed amounts from the proceeds from oil sales?
        Answer. If an emerging drawdown of the SPR became necessary, and
    there were insufficient funds available, balances in other DOE accounts
    could be transferred to the SPR oil account.
        Question. Would the Department work with the Committee to see if
    such a mechanism could be developed?
        Answer. The Department will work with the Committee if such a
    mechanism is developed.
                     naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
        Question. No appropriations are requested for the Naval Petroleum
    and Oil Shale Reserves, in anticipation that unobligated balances will
    be sufficient for program operations in fiscal year 2000. What amount
    of unobligated balances were carried over from fiscal year 1998 to
    1999?
        Answer. Unobligated balances carried from fiscal year 1998 to the
    Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves program in fiscal year 1999 are
    shown on the following page:

    NPR-1 and NPR-2 Operations and Maintenance..............     $20,086,100
    NPR-3 Operations and Maintenance........................          65,200
    Naval Oil Shale Reserves................................       7,496,100
    Program Direction (including equity/divestment
        activities).........................................       6,562,400
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
            Total NPR.......................................      34,209,800

        Question. What is the current estimated carryover into fiscal year
    2000?
        Answer. The current estimated carryover is about $21.2 million,
    calculated as follows:

    Fiscal year 1998 End-of-Year Carryover..................     $34,210,000
    Plus fiscal year 1999 Appropriation.....................      14,000,000
    Less Anticipated fiscal year 1999 Obligations...........     -27,000,000
    Anticipated fiscal year 1999 End-of-Year Carryover......      21,210,000

        Question. Assuming no new appropriations are provided in fiscal
    year 2000, what level of unobligated balances does the program expect
    to have at the end of fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. As much as $25 million of unobligated balances may be
    available at the end of fiscal year 2000, based on de-obligating funds
    from various contracts at Elk Hills. Earlier this fiscal year, we began
    identifying how much money currently found on NPR contracts could be
    considered ``excess'' and redirected for use in other areas of NPR's
    operations. The majority of these contracts were originally put into
    place to support operations at the Elk Hills oil field or its
    divestment. We believe that between $8 and $25 million might be
    available for de-obligation: $5 million from ``inactive'' contracts, $3
    million from revenues generated from the sale of natural gas from Naval
    Oil Shale Reserve No. 3 (which transferred to the DOI on May 1, 1999,
    for leasing), and perhaps as much as $17 million from the former Elk
    Hills oil field management and operating contractor pending the outcome
    of various lawsuits. Whatever money is deemed ``excess'' will be de-
    obligated from existing contracts and used elsewhere within the
    program.
        There are a number of ``imponderables'' which will affect the funds
    available at the end of fiscal year 2000 and beyond. First, there are
    numerous lawsuits against the former Management and Operating
    contractor arising from Elk Hills operations that DOE may be
    responsible for paying. This may prevent DOE from de-obligating the
    full $17 million estimated above. Second, as required by several
    agreements associated with the sale of Elk Hills, some environmental
    assessment and cultural resource activities are underway. Depending
    upon the findings, DOE may have to perform some environmental
    remediation work, thus increasing planned expenditures. Finally, the
    finalization of equity with Chevron is an exacting and contentious
    process that, if further delays ensue, could require funding above
    currently planned levels, as shown below:

    Estimated Funding Requirements

    Estimated unobligated balance, end of fiscal year 1999..     $21,210,000
    Obligated balances redirected from contracts............      25,000,000
    Estimated balance available, end of fiscal year 2000....      46,210,000
    Fiscal year 2000 anticipated obligations................     -21,240,000
    Estimated remaining balance, end of fiscal year 2000....      24,970,000

        Question. The justification indicates that $3.3 million will be
    spent for NPR-1 closeout activities, including retirement benefits for
    M&O contractor employees. For how many years will NPOSR appropriated
    funds be required for this purpose?
        Answer. DOE will fund the retirement benefits of some former
    contractor employees as a result of the sale of the Elk Hills oil field
    which caused the termination of all current and future contracts for
    the management and operation of Elk Hills by their employer, Bechtel
    Petroleum Operations, Inc. (BPOI). Consequently, all of the BPOI
    employees were required to find new jobs or to retire. As a result of
    their service, some of these employees had earned the right to post
    retirement or post employment medical and dental benefits. Consistent
    with DOE policy and practice under contracts for management and
    operation of its facilities and sites, DOE is responsible for funding
    such post-retirement medical benefits for these former retirees. (If
    DOE had merely selected a new contractor to operate the Elk Hills oil
    field, then the successor contractor would have been required to
    fulfill this obligation as a part of their operating contract.
    Currently, Bechtel Nevada is administering the BPOI post-retirement and
    post-contract plans through its contract with DOE at Nevada. Funding
    for the BPOI plan is provided from Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
    Reserve appropriated funds.) The estimate of costs for this obligation
    is up to $1 million annually for up to 40 years for these former
    employees and their eligible dependents.
        Question. The estimated program level for environmental restoration
    at NPR-3 declines in fiscal year 2000 from $3 million to $1.4 million.
    Does the Department anticipate those costs will continue to decline in
    fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. No, but we are not anticipating a sharp increase, either.
    Environmental restoration activity will gradually increase until the
    oil field is eventually abandoned. We have just started the process of
    putting together our fiscal year 2001 budget and early estimates are
    that the program may spend about $2.2 million on environmental
    restoration activities at NPR-3 during that year.
        Question. FTE levels under Program Direction drop by 23. Why do
    associated program levels drop by only $876,000?
        Answer. The overall drop of $876,000 would be more significant if
    it were not for the change in the way the program reports divestment-
    related obligations in its fiscal year 2000 budget. While salaries and
    benefits are somewhat reduced in fiscal year 2000, there are slight
    increases in travel and contractual services due to the inclusion of
    divestment expenditures. Most divestment activities, primarily equity
    finalization, are funded from program direction.
        Divestment expenses are paid from funds that were reprogrammed as
    program direction from various operating accounts. Since divestment
    expenditures are paid from prior year funds that had already been
    appropriated, prior budget submissions did not include anticipated
    divestment-related obligations under program direction. In fiscal year
    2000, the program is not seeking any new appropriation of funds for any
    part of its program, but believes that it is prudent to list all
    anticipated obligations for the year--thus causing a less significant
    decrease in program direction than would otherwise be expected.
        Question. Why does the program level for contractor services
    increase by $1.473 million?
        Answer. The increase is mainly due to a change in philosophy by the
    program in reporting the anticipated obligations and does not represent
    an actual increase in obligations from fiscal year 1999. The fiscal
    year 2000 budget for the Naval Petroleum Reserve includes program
    direction funds anticipated to be obligated in support of divestment
    activities, specifically, finalization of equity shares with Chevron.
    In prior years, unobligated balances had been reprogrammed to support
    such divestment activities. Such expenditures were not included in
    previous budget requests because no ``new'' money was being requested
    to support them. The program is still utilizing those reprogrammed
    dollars in support of divestment activities, but have included them in
    the fiscal year 2000 budget because we are describing all of the new
    obligations that may be entered into, and not just those to be made
    from ``new'' money. The program is not seeking any newly appropriated
    funds for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Does this represent more than just the adoption of the
    seven FTEs from the NPR-3 site?
        Answer. The increase is mainly due to a change in the way the
    program reports its anticipated obligations and does not represent an
    actual increase in obligations from fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year
    2000 budget for the Naval Petroleum Reserve includes program direction
    funds anticipated to be obligated in support of divestment activities,
    specifically, finalization of equity shares with Chevron. In prior
    years, unobligated balances had been reprogrammed to support such
    divestment activities. Such expenditures were not included in previous
    budget requests because no ``new'' money was being requested to support
    them. The program is still utilizing those reprogrammed dollars in
    support of divestment activities, but have included them in the fiscal
    year 2000 budget because we are describing all of the new obligations
    that may be entered into, and not just those to be made from ``new''
    money. The program is not seeking any newly appropriated funds for
    fiscal year 2000.
                              energy conservation
                        building research and standards
        Question. The justification indicates that the Lighting Research
    and Development program in fiscal year 2000 will support work on hybrid
    lighting systems. Within the $6 million request for Lighting Research
    and Development, how much does the Department plan on devoting to this
    effort?
        Answer. The ongoing industry-driven Lighting Roadmap and the
    analysis on hybrid lighting being done by ORNL this fiscal year will
    provide the guidance for prioritizing activities in this research area.
    Provided the technical and market analysis currently underway supports
    the decision and that the recommendations of the industry-driven
    Lighting Roadmap prioritizes this technology, meritorious proposals for
    hybrid lighting received under the fiscal year 2000 competitive
    solicitation will be funded.
        Question. How would the Hybrid Lighting Partnership be involved?
        Answer. The Hybrid Lighting Partnership is participating in the
    ongoing Lighting Roadmap. If industry agrees in their roadmap
    recommendations that this technology is a priority in meeting its
    vision, hybrid lighting will be offered as one of the topics of
    opportunity in the fiscal year 2000 competitive solicitation. The
    Hybrid Lighting Partnership will have the opportunity to respond to the
    competitive solicitation.
        Question. The Department is requesting additional funds for field
    testing of GAX heat pumps that will lead to commercialization in fiscal
    year 2001. How much will the Department be contributing to this effort
    in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The total fiscal year 1999 appropriation for the
    Residential Absorption Heat Pump was $5.91 million. This funding is
    being used for a variety of research, development, and demonstration
    activities. Significant field testing of GAX air conditioners and heat
    pumps is being started in fiscal year 1999. GAX technology is being
    applied to a number of different products planned for market
    introduction over several years. The first production equipment using
    GAX technology will be introduced into the marketplace in 1999 (GAX
    chillers used for air conditioning). This will be followed by
    additional product introductions currently projected for 2001 (mild
    ambient heating and cooling heat pumps) and 2002 (cold ambient heat
    pumps). The GAX family of products is being introduced with the
    simplest to manufacture products being introduced first and the more
    complex products following in order.
        A 180-unit GAX field test is planned to begin in a new subdivision
    (Village Green) scheduled to begin construction in May of 1999. Village
    Green is a ``PATH'' subdivision located in Los Angeles, California.
    This subdivision will be almost 100 percent air-conditioned using early
    production gas-fired GAX air-conditioners. Construction and occupancy
    of the dwellings is scheduled to occur over a 2-year period (1999-
    2000). As initial prototype GAX heat pumps (mild ambient heating and
    cooling heat pumps) become available, they will be installed in Village
    Green (likely starting in 2000). The Village Green GAX field test is
    being cost-shared by Southern California Gas Company and Robur Corp for
    50 percent private sector cost-sharing. As pre-production prototype GAX
    hydronic, mild ambient, and cold ambient heat pumps become available,
    they will be placed in field test locations at various sites throughout
    the country in cooperation with natural gas utilities.
        Question. In fiscal year 2000 request level?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request for the residential absorption
    heat pump program is $6.5 million. These funds will be used for the
    residential GAX heat pump and the residential/light commercial ``Hi-
    cool'' heat pump. Field testing of at least 12 prototype residential
    GAX heat pumps will begin at various locations. A light commercial
    eight-ton prototype ``Hi-cool'' heat pump will be fabricated and
    laboratory testing will begin.
        Question. What is the level of cost sharing with industry in this
    phase of the program?
        Answer. In the GAX and HI-cool activities, cost share by the
    private sector is 35 percent coming from the manufacturers and the gas
    industry.
        Question. Will funds be requested for additional GAX heat pump work
    in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. It is anticipated that funds will be requested for GAX heat
    pump work in fiscal year 2001. This would be principally for the
    continuing development of the mild ambient and cold ambient GAX heat
    pump technology along with the associated field testing and
    demonstration. Some fiscal year 2001 funding would be used for
    continuation and completion of field testing started in 1999 and 2000.
        Question. The request also indicates that in fiscal year 2000 the
    department will ``. . . complete field test of the commercial prototype
    and facilitate the commercialization of a 450-ton DCC chiller . . .
    with York International.'' How much will be devoted to this effort in
    fiscal year 2000, assuming the requested level of funding?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2000 funding of $1.5 million would be devoted
    to the Triple-Effect field test to be located in the Government Center
    of Clark County, Nevada. This fiscal year 2000 funding is projected to
    be sufficient to complete the field testing program. This field test is
    being co-funded principally by York International.
        Question. How will the Department ``facilitate the
    commercialization'' of this technology?
        Answer. Commercialization of the technology will be facilitated
    principally through the efforts of the partners in this program during
    and after the field test. For example, the Clark County Government
    Center was selected in part for the accessibility and visibility of the
    test site. In the October 27, 1998, letter of intent for the field
    test, witnessed by the Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, Clark
    County agreed to cooperate in the publication and dissemination of
    information about the chiller's performance through appropriate media.
    The fiscal year 2000 funding will be used principally for demonstration
    of the Triple-Effect chiller. Specifically, the funding will be used to
    complete design and fabrication of the full size direct gas-fired
    Triple-Effect chiller, installation and testing of the Triple-Effect
    chiller, providing technical assistance and monitoring at the test
    site, analyzing the test data, and documenting the performance in
    published reports. This field test demonstration step is important in
    verifying the efficiency and economic benefits of the Triple-Effect
    chiller technology for large commercial buildings. This dissemination
    of information documenting the predicted substantial energy and
    operating cost savings of the Triple-Effect chiller in actual operation
    should facilitate the commercialization of this technology by York.
        Question. Why is the Department involved at all in the
    commercialization phase of this technology?
        Answer. The Department is principally involved in development and
    demonstration of this technology. Technology transfer activities
    intended to result in accelerating utilization of this emerging
    technology in commercial and institutional buildings through
    information dissemination would only be a small part of the total
    Department effort. This small effort is important to the development of
    this technology, as field verification activities provide information
    on any final technology changes needed to complete the development
    cycle.
        Question. The Committee provided $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for
    the demonstration of modular fuel cells at federal facilities. How are
    these funds being administered?
        Answer. The funds are being administered under the Office of
    Building Technology, State and Community Programs Fuel Cells for
    Buildings program. Preliminary discussions have been held with a
    potential supplier of the modular fuel cell. Issues of cost-sharing and
    demonstration vs. test and evaluation are being addressed. In addition,
    efforts are underway to identify an appropriate site. A work/test
    proposal is being prepared and this program will begin in fiscal year
    1999.
        Question. The Department has worked with industry since 1997 to
    develop a roadmap for technology improvements in the heating,
    ventilation, and air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors. The
    Department has reportedly been very supportive of this Air-conditioning
    and Refrigeration Technology Initiative (ARTI). Have any funds been
    provided in support of ARTI?
        Answer. Yes, in fiscal year 1998 the Department completed the last
    increment of funding of a successful multi-year program totaling $10.5
    million through ARTI for research and development in Materials
    Compatibility and Lubricant Research. DOE also began work in fiscal
    year 1998 to establish a co-operative agreement with ARTI to initiate a
    new more comprehensive program of research for the twenty-first
    century, referred to as the ARTI 21-CR program. This co-operative
    agreement has recently been approved for funding the ARTI 21-CR
    program.
        Question. If so, how much and from what program elements?
        Answer. Fiscal year 1998 funding was provided to ARTI for the
    Materials Compatibility and Lubricant Research program from the Space
    Conditioning and Refrigeration program.
        Question. If not, does the Department intend to allocate any funds
    for this purpose in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, $1 million will be provided to support
    the ARTI 21-CR Research and Development program. Funding will come from
    the Space Conditioning and Refrigeration program and the Technology
    Road Maps and Competitive Research and Development program.
        Question. Are any funds included in the fiscal year 2000 request
    for this purpose?
        Answer. Yes, funds are included in the fiscal year 2000 request
    under both the Technology Road Maps and Competitive Research and
    Development program activity, and the Space Conditioning and
    Refrigeration program for the ARTI 21-CR program. The level of funding
    will be dependent on the level of appropriations for these program
    elements.
                        lighting and appliance standards
        Question. The Department is seeking a $6.5 million, 100-percent
    increase for the Lighting and Appliance Standards program, which
    follows on a $1 million increase provided in fiscal year 1999. What
    specifically will be accomplished in the Codes and Standards program in
    fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The Department plans to issue Notices of Proposed
    Rulemakings (NOPR) for energy efficiency standards for ballasts,
    clothes washers, and residential water heaters. A final rule for energy
    efficiency standards for gas kitchen ranges and ovens will also be
    issued in fiscal year 1999. The Department also plans to issue NOPRs
    for test procedures for dishwashers, commercial furnaces, boilers,
    water heaters, air conditioners, and heat pumps. A final rule for large
    electric motors test procedures will be issued in fiscal year 1999.
    This effort is a priority of the Assistant Secretary and an aggressive
    schedule to complete the activities has been adopted by the office.
        Question. What rulemakings will be issued in fiscal year 2000? In
    fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Standards rulemaking activities are determined through a
    prioritization process which solicits public input. The selection
    process for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 has not been completed yet.
    However, in fiscal year 2000 the Department expects to publish the
    following:
      --Both an advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and NOPR proposing
            energy efficiency standards for residential central air
            conditioners;
      --Final rules for energy efficiency standards for ballasts, clothes
            washers, residential water heaters; and
      --Final rules for test procedures for dishwashers; commercial
            furnaces, boilers, water heaters, air conditioners, and heat
            pumps; and distribution transformers.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Department expects to issue a final rule
    for energy efficiency standards for residential central air
    conditioners and NOPRs proposing standards for the following commercial
    equipment: furnaces, boilers, water heaters, air conditioners, heat
    pumps, and distribution transformers. If sufficient funds are
    available, the Department would also conduct a study to determine the
    potential energy savings that might be realized if standards were
    established for high-intensity discharge lamps and small electric
    motors, as directed in the Energy Policy Act.
        Question. If the program is held to the fiscal year 1999 funding
    level, what work would not be accomplished in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Increased investments in buildings technology research,
    development, pre-commercial deployment and codes and standards are of
    critical importance to meeting the energy and environmental challenges
    of our times and the next century. However, we realize the existence of
    budget constraints and will work closely with the committee staff to
    identify priorities.
        Question. The Committee recognizes the effort the Department has
    put into reforming the Codes and Standards program, but given the
    contentious history of the program, why is the Department in such a
    rush to issue so many rulemakings in fiscal years 2000 and 2001?
        Answer. In many instances the Department is more than 5 years
    behind the rulemaking schedule established by Congress. The Department
    is trying to catch up with this schedule because of the huge economic
    and environmental benefits which these standards will produce for
    consumers and the nation. By the year 2010, the cumulative national
    effect of standards for five appliances (refrigerators, dishwashers,
    clothes washers, clothes dryers, and room air-conditioners), will be
    5.9 quads of primary energy savings and $24 billion (in 1997 dollars)
    in savings to consumers. The standards we are currently working on for
    ballasts and water heaters as well as the revisions to the clothes
    washer standard will collectively generate additional savings equal to
    or greater than the 5.9 quads and $24 billion. The funds requested in
    fiscal year 2000 will enable the Department to accelerate the analysis
    and rulemaking regarding energy conservation standards for commercial
    furnaces, boilers, central air conditioners, heat pumps and water
    heaters.
                       federal energy management program
        Question. Information provided by the Department indicates that
    federal energy use has been reduced by 17 percent from 1985 and that
    the Department's goal is to reach the 20-percent level by fiscal year
    2000. Is any of the 17-percent gain attributable to a reduction in
    space occupied by the federal government since 1985?
        Answer. No, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 specifies that the goal
    is to be measured by energy use per gross square foot, which is a
    measure of efficiency. Progress toward the goal is calculated using
    reported current year energy use divided by current year square footage
    in goal buildings.
        Question. Is any of the gain attributable to efficiency gains from
    closure of old facilities or the movement from old to new facilities
    that would have taken place regardless of the existence of the Federal
    Energy Management Program (FEMP)?
        Answer. Yes, renewal of the building stock is one component of
    efficiency change. However, the extent of change attributable to these
    circumstances is not calculable, as agencies report only aggregate
    square footage and energy use; individual buildings are not tracked
    other than those excluded from the goal calculation. Some of the
    increased efficiency in new federal buildings can be attributed to FEMP
    efforts to promote energy efficient new construction through design
    assistance activities, designation of federal showcase facilities,
    collaborative efforts with GSA, as well as the established federal
    building code.
        Question. Have these statistics been verified by entities outside
    of the Department?
        Answer. No, there is no requirement or funding for independent
    third party verification or audit of these statistics. Third parties
    have examined the annual reports to Congress, have commented on
    progress toward established goals, and have made suggestions for
    improvement. These reviews, however, have not actually audited or
    verified the reported data.
        Question. Is the primary goal of the FEMP program to reduce energy
    costs to the federal government, or to reduce energy consumption
    generally?
        Answer. The FEMP program is structured to save both energy and
    energy costs. Federal energy management goals established by the Energy
    Policy Act of 1992 and Executive Order 12902 are energy efficiency
    improvement goals, measured in BTU per gross square foot reductions
    from a 1985 baseline. The achievement of these goals is to be
    accomplished in a life- cycle cost effective manner, as specified in
    the code of federal regulations.
        Question. What are the Department's Government Performance and
    Results Act performance measures for the program?
        Answer. The Department's Government Performance and Results Act
    performance measures for FEMP are the Energy Policy Act goal of a 20-
    percent reduction in energy use per gross square foot of goal building
    area by 2000, and the Executive Order 12902 goal of a 30-percent
    reduction in the same measure by 2005. Both are measured against a 1985
    baseline. Intermediary performance measures are focused on putting in
    place, and implementing Energy Savings Performance Contracts that
    enable agencies to invest in efficiency, renewable and advanced
    technologies.
        Question. Is the 17-percent reduction in energy use calculated
    using primarily ``source'' or ``site'' based techniques?
        Answer. Progress toward the goal is measured in site energy.
        Question. How do you respond to criticisms that energy savings
    since 1985 measured on a ``source'' basis are close to 0 percent?
        Answer. When measured on a primary energy (source-based) basis,
    energy consumed in fiscal year 1997 in federal buildings per square
    foot was 4 percent below the fiscal year 1985 baseline. Source-based
    measures effect the reporting of electricity and steam consumption and
    include the consumption of resources used to generate and transport the
    energy to the point of use. As such, source-based calculations are an
    estimate based on the average heat content of those constituent fuels
    and the generation efficiency. The FEMP uses 11,600 Btu per
    kilowatthour of electricity to estimate primary energy consumption for
    electricity used. This is compared to the heat content of a site-
    delivered kilowatthour of 3,412 Btu. Using a source-based measure of
    consumption increases the proportion of electricity in the fuel mix by
    more than three fold, resulting in a consumption trend that more
    closely mirrors that of electricity. Electricity intensity increases in
    federal buildings peaked in fiscal year 1994, at 17 percent above
    fiscal year 1885 consumption per square foot. Since fiscal year 1994,
    however, electricity intensity in federal buildings has decreased more
    than 4 percent.
        The federal government uses site-based energy accounting because
    federal agencies can measure and report based on their site metered and
    billed consumption. This method is direct and accurate, comparable
    across regions, and readily converted into economic terms. While
    program goals have been set on a site energy basis, we have tried to
    provide additional direction to federal energy managers. All federal
    energy management decisions are to be based on a life- cycle cost
    basis. The Interagency Energy Policy Committee has provided guidance
    instructing that energy projects that save source (total) or site
    energy should be completed where there are cost savings to the
    government. The choice whether to switch from one energy source to
    another, where the source versus site issue arises, is left to
    individual agencies and sites, based on all relevant factors and local
    conditions they face when making that decision.
        The success of federal energy management is reflected in an
    estimated program impact of approximately $900 million (1997 dollars)
    in annual energy cost savings in 1997 from the 1985 baseline. Total
    reduction in the energy bill for federal buildings was $2.16 billion in
    1997 from 1985 levels, reflecting all factors influencing buildings
    energy use (that is, reductions in square footage, energy price
    reductions, building retirement and new construction, changes in
    mission, and changes in equipment).
        Question. Can the Department do more to ensure that the FEMP
    program promotes both cost savings and reductions in energy use
    measured on a ``source'' basis?
        Answer. The FEMP program supports the pursuit of all life-cycle
    cost-effective energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced
    technology investments by federal energy managers. The Interagency
    Energy Policy Committee has provided guidance instructing that energy
    projects that save source (total) or site energy should be completed
    where there are cost savings to the government. The choice of whether
    to switch from one energy source to another is left to individual
    agencies and sites, based on all relevant factors and local conditions.
        Question. I understand the Administration is actively considering
    an Executive Order designed to ensure that federal agencies move
    aggressively to implement energy management projects that provide both
    cost savings and reductions in energy use. What is the status of this
    Executive Order?
        Answer. A draft Executive Order is being prepared by the Office of
    the President at this time.
        Question. Pursuant to language included in the Interior
    appropriations bill several years ago, the Department can be reimbursed
    by other agencies for work performed in the FEMP program and use such
    reimbursements for additional work within the program. The budget
    justification estimates total reimbursements to be $1.2 million in
    fiscal year 1999 and $3.5 million in fiscal year 2000. Will the
    Department's estimates for fiscal year 1999 hold up?
        Answer. The status of reimbursements for FEMP technical and
    contracting services associated with the Super-ESPC program as of March
    30, 1999, is as follows:

    Funds in hand.................................................  $203,000
    Billed or billable............................................   460,000
    Anticipated near-term.........................................   330,000
    Anticipated long-term........................................\1\ 200,000

    \1\ Approximate at fiscal year-end.

    Total available and anticipated receivables are approximately $1 million
    by year-end.

        Question. To what level does the Department estimate such
    reimbursements will rise in the future?
        Answer. At this time the Department estimates that up to $36
    million in direct and indirect costs associated with servicing the FEMP
    Super-ESPC contracts could be recovered by reimbursement by customer
    agencies through fiscal year 2005. The actual amount recovered is
    dependent upon the extent to which agencies choose the FEMP Super-ESPCs
    as a financing mechanism, and the extent to which agencies need to
    access FEMP's technical resources in support of their efficiency
    projects. Additional amounts of reimbursables are anticipated from
    support of agencies technical needs associated with utility-financed
    projects. The FEMP will be closely monitoring the federal market
    response to the various available financing mechanisms, and adjusting
    its budget requests to reflect infrastructure, staffing, and
    contractual requirements to meet demands for FEMP technical assistance
    and Super-ESPC use. The distribution of receipts of reimbursable funds
    across the performance period is dependent upon the timing of demand
    for FEMP services and whether or not agencies choose up front or
    delayed reimbursement of the Department for those services.
        Question. Can this Committee at some point anticipate a budget
    request for FEMP that will be level or actually decline from the
    previous year based on the availability of these reimbursements?
        Answer. Among the chief assumptions were meeting the Executive
    Order 12902 fiscal year 2005 30-percent goal, full funding of the
    budget requests, and sufficient market demand for FEMP Super-ESPCs to
    generate the projected reimbursable funding stream. Appropriations
    significantly less than those requested in fiscal year 1999 resulted in
    lower FEMP levels of ESPC services and delivery order activity, and
    proportionate loss of reimbursable activities and funds, which delays
    and decreases the potential for lower budget requests in the out years.
        Lower than expected demand for FEMP Super-ESPCs in the early years
    would also decrease the potential of receipt of reimbursed funds, and
    subsequent decreases in budget requests. The federal market of
    alternatively financed energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
    is dynamic, and FEMP will closely monitor the market and adjust its
    budget requests to reflect the level of demand for FEMP technical and
    contracting services accordingly. The fiscal year 2000 budget request
    includes funding to support alternative finance approaches to mobility
    energy efficiency, water conservation, and efficiency in federal leased
    space. These are new activities that will require appropriations
    support over and above the fiscal year 1999 appropriations level.
        Lower outyear appropriations requests for FEMP alternative
    financing activities are possible, given adequate appropriations in
    early years to establish a base of reimbursable activities, and
    sufficient utilization of FEMP services and contracts by agencies.
    Additional appropriations requests in the out years are possible for
    new, currently unknown, initiatives associated with energy and cost
    savings opportunities in the federal government. The FEMP will strive
    to hone its program to the highest value activities, and to submit
    budget requests aligned with achieving the greatest benefit to the
    government in terms of energy and costs savings outcomes.
        Question. The FEMP program now has in place ``Super Energy Savings
    Performance Contracts'' in various regions to facilitate the
    development of energy savings at federal sites. How much actual work
    has been contracted with this mechanism thus far?
        Answer. Seven projects have been awarded under the Super-ESPCs for
    the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, the General
    Services Administration, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of
    Veterans Affairs, and the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration. These projects are being financed with over $27.5
    million of private sector funds. The projects will result in gross
    savings of $57 million. The contractors' investments will be paid from
    these savings.
        Question. Is progress to date as great as predicted by the
    Department in presenting its fiscal year 1999 budget request?
        Answer. Progress to date is on track. There are currently about 190
    delivery orders signed, in progress, or supported by FEMP under the
    Super-ESPCs. Several of those cover multiple facilities which have been
    bundled together under a single delivery order. This bundling will make
    the contracts easier to administer for both the government and the
    energy service company. Of the 190, about 62 have already either signed
    delivery orders (7) or selected a specific a contractor (55) to
    evaluate the facility and prepare a proposal specifically tailored to
    the site. Within the 190, we have some Department of Defense sites we
    have worked with to move toward a delivery order. Some of those sites
    are likely to use the contracts that the Army and Air Force have
    awarded but the results will still be the same, the agency will realize
    energy savings and cost savings.
        We do not expect to ``close'' each of the delivery orders we now
    have in process, but since starting the Super-ESPC process, we are
    continually responding to new requests for delivery order assistance.
    Our projection for 1999 reflects our estimate of the total number of
    agency requests for support in developing delivery orders.
        Question. If not, why not?
        Answer. We now have lessons learned that will help to speed up
    project implementation. The ESPC process is a new way of doing business
    for the federal government. We are working with agencies' technical,
    contracting, legal, and budget personnel to guide them through the
    process. One additional delay in the delivery order process was caused
    by agencies developing processes for required notifications to Congress
    for projects with cancellation ceilings in excess of $750,000. Since
    most agencies are now signing their first ESPC delivery orders
    requiring Congressional notification, they are having to set up
    processes within their organizations to manage the notification. This
    usually slows the first delivery orders and improves somewhat in later
    orders. However, DOE intends to submit a legislative recommendation to
    raise the notification limit from $750,000 to some higher level, yet to
    be determined, in order to minimize these delays in future.
        Question. Is there anything that this Committee can do to encourage
    other federal agencies to pursue energy savings contracting more
    aggressively?
        Answer. Yes, the FEMP has been given the authority to accept funds
    from agencies for assistance they receive from FEMP for achieving
    energy efficiency through Super-ESPCs. The cost the Department is
    seeking to recover from other agencies is quite modest, from $10,000 to
    $50,000 for a delivery order, depending on the level of services
    required by a particular federal site. These costs are far less than
    what it would cost an agency to develop and implement an energy savings
    performance contact from scratch. In addition, the time from initiation
    to completed project is greatly reduced through utilization of the
    existing FEMP-based contracts. In spite of these advantages some
    agencies and sites are reluctant to commit to use of the contracts
    because of reimbursement requirement, citing lack of funding or an
    unwillingness to lose part of their projected savings. The Committee
    could be helpful if it encouraged all agencies to utilize FEMP services
    and the private sector energy savings performance contracts.
                          transportation technologies
        Question. Within the limitations of its funding allocation, this
    subcommittee has been supportive of the Partnership for a New
    Generation of Vehicles (PGNV) program. How does progress within the
    program to date measure against the goals established at the outset of
    the program?
        Answer. Today, at the halfway point, we consider the PNGV to be a
    successful partnership. When PNGV began, some said that the auto
    manufacturers and government could not work together. Five years of
    cooperation have proven the skeptics wrong. This unprecedented
    partnership is now viewed by many as a model for government and
    industry working together to meet technology challenges of national
    importance. The program is on schedule. As planned, research and
    development activities have been narrowed to those technologies
    identified as ``most promising'' by the technology selection process in
    1997. Concept cars employing these technologies are under development
    and expected in 2000. Pre-production prototype vehicles are due in
    2004. The concept cars displayed by companies at the January 1999 North
    American International Auto Show in Detroit include technologies
    developed or enhanced through the PNGV program and provide public
    evidence that significant progress is being made. We expect that many
    PNGV technologies will be used in sport utility vehicles, pickups, and
    medium and heavy trucks, not just mid-sized sedans.
        Question. A focus of the Transportation program has been
    development of ``clean diesel'' engines that would increase efficiency
    and lower emissions of sport utility vehicles. What are the significant
    barriers remaining in the development of `clean diesel' engines that
    would be affordable and acceptable to consumers?
        Answer. The major remaining technical challenge is to reduce the
    exhaust emissions of the diesel engine to near-zero levels, to meet
    upcoming California Air Resources Board and Environmental Protection
    Agency standards. The specific emissions-related barriers that require
    further federal research and development support are reductions of
    nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. An advanced formulation, low-
    sulfur fuel is also critical to overcoming these barriers. High volume
    use of diesel-powered passenger cars in the European market will
    continue to drive reduction of engine cost, but fuel injection and
    emission control system costs will increase in the near-term to meet
    these more stringent requirements. Other factors important for consumer
    acceptability such as noise, vibration, cold starting ability, and
    acceleration are being addressed primarily by engine manufacturers.
        Question. Who are the Department's major partners in this effort?
        Answer. The major Department of Energy industry partners include
    the three principal U.S.-based automakers, General Motors, Ford, and
    Daimler-Chrysler. Within the federal government, the Department of
    Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, and
    several other federal agencies are included in the Partnership for a
    New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). In parallel with research being
    carried out directly with, or through, PNGV participants, additional
    research and development programs are being established under cost-
    shared agreements directly with major suppliers. For example, in June
    1999, DOE expects to award contracts to Detroit Diesel Corporation and
    the Cummins Engine Company, two major U.S. diesel engine manufacturers,
    to develop emission control systems for diesel passenger cars which can
    also be scaled up for light truck applications. Through recent DOE
    initiatives, working relationships also are being established among
    DOE's national laboratories and four major catalyst manufacturers--
    ASEC, Johnson-Matthey, Degussa, and Engelhard--through the
    Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, to integrate and test
    state-of-the-art emission control components.
        Question. At what point in the development process will the federal
    government step out of the picture and let the industry ``go it
    alone''?
        Answer. Compression-ignition, direct-injection (CIDI) engine
    technology efforts under the Partnership for a New Generation of
    Vehicles (PNGV) follow a research and development roadmap, including
    schedules and technical targets, developed in cooperation with the PNGV
    Four-Stroke, Direct Injection (4SDI) Technical Team. This team is
    composed of scientists and engineers from the auto industry, federal
    government agencies, and federal laboratories who specialize in such
    areas as combustion and emission control systems. To ensure that the
    CIDI effort is focused on the candidates most likely to achieve the
    objectives, go/no-go decision milestones have been incorporated within
    the technology development schedule. Technology development will
    continue beyond a decision milestone only if the technical targets for
    that milestone have been achieved. Failure to achieve the targets will
    result in project termination or revision of the roadmap. Once the
    desired performance has been validated, and the established targets
    achieved, federal research efforts will conclude and each industry
    partner will determine where, and in what configuration, the technology
    will be commercialized.
        Question. There has been significant media attention this week on
    the fuel cell automobiles being produced by Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, and
    other automakers. What are the significant barriers remaining in the
    development of fuel cell cars that will be affordable and acceptable to
    consumers?
        Answer. Fuel-flexible fuel cell systems that can operate on
    gasoline or advanced petroleum-based fuels are considered by DOE
    necessary for the successful early introduction of fuel cell vehicles.
    This relates simply to the issue of fuel availability. To date, no fuel
    cell developer or auto company has built an automotive-size integrated
    fuel cell system operating on gasoline. Beyond that, the cost of the
    automotive fuel cell system is currently estimated at ten times higher
    than that needed to be competitive with the internal combustion engine.
    Significant barriers are as follows:
      --On-board fuel processing technology that can meet system
            efficiency, size, weight, start-up and transient response
            targets.
      --Lack of low-cost, high-volume fabrication processes for fuel cell
            systems and components.
      --Integration of fuel processor, fuel cell stack, and balance of
            plant components needed to enable successful resolution of
            system level issues such as durability, freeze-thaw
            performance, and thermal/water management.
        Question. To what extent does the development of fuel cell vehicles
    threaten to ``overtake'' developments in advanced combustion engines,
    alternative fuel vehicles, and other advanced transportation
    technologies?
        Answer. The extent to which fuel cell vehicles will succeed in the
    marketplace, thus ``overtaking'' competing technologies, is dependent
    on a number of factors that include: price of fuel, emissions
    regulations, mass production cost, progress of competing technologies,
    fuel cell technical progress, foreign activity, and the economy. The
    difficulty in predicting these factors makes it impossible to
    accurately forecast if and when fuel cell technology will be
    commercially available in vehicles. Lowering the cost of fuel cells to
    compete with technologies which primarily have only technical barriers,
    such as advanced internal combustion engines, suggests it will be a
    number of years before fuel cell vehicles move beyond the concept and
    prototype stages. However, each technology has significant development
    risks sufficient to prohibit identification of a clear winner at this
    stage. The benefits of fuel cells--extremely high efficiency, very low
    emissions, and utilization of renewable and alternative fuels--make a
    compelling case that the technology will ultimately succeed.
        Question. Is the development of practical and affordable fuel cell
    technology so far in the future that these other technologies are
    likely to have a life span in the market that will justify the federal
    investment in them?
        Answer. The Department has structured the investment in
    transportation technologies to be complementary. These technologies are
    not necessarily in direct competition, where one technology will
    ``win'' over another. For example, our work in electric vehicles
    (motors, batteries and power electronics) is directly applicable to
    compression-ignition, direct- injection (CIDI) hybrids, gasoline
    hybrids and fuel cell vehicles since all are electric drive vehicles
    that require those components. Technologies other than fuel cells in
    which the federal government is investing to improve vehicle fuel
    economy and emissions are likely to have shorter term payoffs.
        In the case of fuel cells versus other advanced technologies such
    as CIDI, it is likely that the fuel cell will have significant market
    penetration later due to cost considerations. As fuel cells enter the
    market, different technologies will likely start to dominate certain
    market segments (that is, sport utility vehicles, automobiles, and
    vans). Full conversion over to a single technology, presuming that a
    clear ``winner'' emerges, will take at least a few decades.
        Question. At what point in the fuel cell development process will
    the federal government step out of the picture and let the automobile
    industry ``go it alone''?
        Answer. Fuel cell research and development activities are currently
    conducted under the PNGV program; the completion strategy is based on
    achieving established targets and transferring the technology to
    America's automakers and their suppliers to ensure a viable,
    competitive domestic fuel cell industry. The federal government should
    step out of the fuel cell development picture when the established
    targets of cost, efficiency, and performance are met or when the
    likelihood of meeting those targets falls below an acceptable level in
    light of other alternative technologies.
        Question. The Transportation program has been working with the
    Northwest Alliance for Transportation Technologies (NATT), a consortium
    of aluminum and titanium producers, truck manufacturers, Boeing, the
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and others. Are you familiar yet
    with the work being done by NATT?
        Answer. Yes, the Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT), in
    the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has worked with
    NATT since its inception in 1997, and has supported NATT's activities
    which are helping to accomplish OTT's mission.
        Question. Is it your impression that NATT is making a valuable
    contribution to Department of Energy programs?
        Answer. Yes, the NATT's expertise in aluminum, magnesium, titanium,
    metal-matrix composites, glazing, and polymer-matrix composites has
    provided an important dimension to the materials research and
    development work supported by OTT. Its collaboration with industry in
    the Northwest also bodes well for more rapid commercialization of
    developed technologies.
        Question. What is the status for funds appropriated for NATT in
    fiscal years 1998 and 1999?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, $2.39 million of the Lightweight
    Materials funds were committed and distributed to NATT for automotive
    applications. The Lightweight Materials program within the Office of
    Advanced Automotive Technologies (OAAT) has committed $3,725,000 to
    NATT in fiscal year 1999; all but $575,000 has actually been sent to
    NATT. the Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies (OHVT), has been sent to
    NATT, for Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA)
    activities.
        Question. Have all such funds been obligated to research contracts?
        Answer. The $575,000 of committed research funds yet to be
    distributed to NATT from OAAT's fiscal year 1999 program resources are
    planned for specific research projects. Of funds already provided to
    NATT, $250,000 are for NATT program management; that amount will not be
    obligated to research projects. All OHVT funds for NATT are to be
    obligated to specific research project areas that are currently being
    planned and are nearing CRADA status.
        Question. What are some of the specific research areas being
    targeted by NATT, and how do these research areas relate to PNGV
    program goals?
        Answer. Specific research areas targeted by NATT under the OAAT
    program for automobiles include aluminum, magnesium, titanium, metal-
    matrix composites, glazing, and polymer-matrix composites. The work
    accomplished in all these areas all contributes to the PNGV goal of 40-
    percent vehicle weight reduction at comparable cost. These areas
    contribute to high structural strength, with no degradation in
    durability and reliability, and are also important for achieving a high
    efficiency, 10-mile-per-gallon heavy truck in the OHVT program.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2000 budget request include funds
    for NATT?
        Answer. Yes, funding for NATT is in the Lightweight Materials
    Technology program request within the Materials Technologies program
    managed by OTT.
        Question. If so, how much and in what program elements?
        Answer. Funding proposed for NATT in fiscal year 2000 is
    $3,175,000. These funds are in the Lightweight Materials Technology
    portion of the transportation programs request. Specific research areas
    to be addressed by the fiscal year 2000 work will again include
    aluminum, magnesium, titanium, metal-matrix composites, glazing, and
    polymer-matrix composites.
        Question. How will the proposed reduction in Lightweight Materials
    Research impact the NATT program?
        Answer. Ongoing efforts will be ``stretched out'' over more years
    at reduced annual funding. Industry partners may be asked to assume
    higher cost-share on more mature projects. No new projects will be
    started.
                            industries of the future
        Question. The budget request for the Industries of the Future
    program includes a large increase ($9 million) for the Forest Products
    program. This increase will fund demonstrations of black liquor
    gasification technology that would substantially lower NOX,
    SO2 and CO2 emissions from paper mills and would
    make these mills much more energy efficient. Can you tell me a little
    more about this project?
        Answer. The Department of Energy has partnered with the Forest
    Products industry to develop a research and development strategy, known
    as Agenda 2020. Through this effort technology roadmaps have helped
    prioritize research and development areas that offer the most
    significant benefits for the industry and the nation. Demonstration of
    black liquor and biomass gasification systems are considered key
    elements that can provide a pathway to an energy sustainable future.
    Multiple gasification technologies are needed to meet the diverse needs
    of the industry and achieve the energy and environmental goals of the
    nation. There are risks associated with demonstrating these
    technologies that one company alone cannot endure and therefore
    justifies government participation. The fiscal year 2000 President's
    budget request for Energy Conservation includes a $9 million increase
    for biomass and black liquor gasification; this funding will support
    the initial year of a competitive solicitation for multi-year field
    evaluations.
        Question. How many demonstrations does the Department intend to
    fund?
        Answer. The planned release of the fiscal year 2000 solicitation is
    dependent on favorable House and Senate appropriation marks. Proposals
    submitted to the solicitation will be evaluated by merit and program
    policy review committees. Selections will be made based upon the
    outcome of the reviews and availability of appropriated funds. The $9
    million that was requested in fiscal year 2000 can support up to
    multiple technologies in the initial year.
        Question. Why this many?
        Answer. Due to a variety of gasifiers, feedstocks and processing
    technologies several demonstrations performed simultaneously (rather
    than sequentially) are necessary to provide the industry adequate
    information to make timely decisions for replacing their aged boiler
    infrastructure (40 to 50 years old).
        Question. Who are the industrial partners and what is the level of
    non-federal cost sharing?
        Answer. Naturally, the industrial partners will depend on the
    outcome of the fiscal year 2000 solicitation. However, the Forest
    Products industry has proposed an initiative which has aligned several
    key paper companies with gasification suppliers. Champion International
    Corporation is teaming with Kvaerner Chemrec AB to develop a
    pressurized Oxygen-Blown Black Liquor Gasification and Integrated
    Combined Cycle system. This project has recently been selected for
    funding in fiscal year 1999 for preliminary engineering designs, cost
    estimates and supporting analyses, which will be used to determine the
    economics of demonstrating integrated gasification combined cycle
    technologies in pulp mills. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, together with
    StoneChem, Inc, is proposing to demonstrate a Steam Reforming Black
    Liquor gasification system. This project is being considered for
    funding in fiscal year 1999, as well. Weyerhaeuser and FERCO are
    working together to demonstrate biomass gasification combined cycle
    systems to replace inefficient power and lime kiln boilers. Babcock and
    Wilcox has also discussed interest in black liquor gasification.
    Proposals for the fiscal year 2000 solicitation will require a minimum
    of 50 percent industry cost-share.
        Question. How long will the program last?
        Answer. A gasification program that fully supports the Forest
    Products industry will be approximately 5 to 8 years in duration,
    depending on allocation of appropriated funds. Milestones will be
    incorporated into project schedules and go/no go decisions will be
    established throughout the life of the projects.
        Question. What will the fiscal year 2001 funding requirements be?
        Answer. Total cost per demonstration project is estimated to be $50
    to $60 million over five to six years. The fiscal year 2001 funding
    requirements will be based upon the amount of appropriated funds in
    fiscal year 2000, number of projects ready for design phase versus
    implementation, and levels of cost sharing from a variety of sources.
        Question. What are the barriers to industry development and
    demonstration of this technology without federal support?
        Answer. As with all initial large-scale process technologies,
    installations will require larger capital costs than subsequent units
    and will incur larger initial operating expenses. Without DOE cost
    share, the risks associated with implementing gasification technologies
    are too burdensome for one company to withstand. Additionally, industry
    is working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to acquire
    innovative technology waivers for MACT II regulations. Since the new
    technologies provide significant environmental benefits, it is expected
    that the EPA will grant leniency for the host sites to comply with
    these rules. However, if this does not occur, the advancement of these
    demonstrations may be jeopardized.
        Question. What is the relationship of this program to the
    Department's Bioenergy Initiative?
        Answer. The gasification effort is part of a broader Bioenergy
    Initiative, which will accelerate the use of fuels, energy crops, and
    feedstocks in power generation, industrial processing and manufacturing
    and transportation activities. The Bioenergy Initiative research and
    development will produce an array of technologies that will enable
    production from a variety of energy crops of multiple products (fuels,
    power, and chemicals) for various markets in different regions. In this
    way, a ton of biomass could be as fungible as a barrel of oil today.
    This effort will provide an integrated, long-term strategy with the
    chemical, forestry, agricultural and energy communities and will help
    strengthen the nation's energy and economic security, protect the
    environment and revitalize rural America. Successful demonstration of
    gasification technologies in the forest products industry will provide
    a springboard for applications in other industries and bioenergy areas,
    such as the agricultural sector.
        Question. Do any funds in the budget request outside of the Forest
    Products program support the black liquor gasification project? If so,
    how much and in what programs?
        Answer. There are no other requests outside of the Forest Products
    program that support black liquor gasification activities. The $9
    million increase within the fiscal year 2000 President's budget request
    for Energy Conservation appropriation will support the initial year of
    a competitive solicitation for multi-year field evaluations.
        Question. The budget request also includes increases for the Mining
    ($3 million) and Agriculture ($4 million) industry programs that were
    initiated in fiscal year 1999 and a $1 million request to restart the
    Petroleum Refining industry program. What is the status of the Mining
    Industry Technology ``roadmapping'' process? Of the $2 million
    appropriated in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The Mining Industry of the Future is currently soliciting
    50 percent cost-shared proposals from industry, academia, and national
    laboratories to address the needs identified in the ``Mining Industry
    Roadmap for Crosscutting Technologies''. This roadmap, available from
    both the National Mining Association and the DOE Office of Industrial
    Technologies, provides a prioritized list of needed technologies
    identified by both hardrock and coal mining industry partners in the
    United States. The funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999 will be
    directed to the national laboratories in order to start addressing
    these needs as soon as possible.
        Question. What is the status of the Agriculture industry technology
    ``roadmapping'' process? Of the $2 million appropriated in fiscal year
    1999?
        Answer. Our industry and grower partners convened two roadmapping
    sessions late last summer in Indianapolis, Indiana. The first focused
    on current crops in current processing systems; the second focused on
    modified plants for new processing methods. Over one hundred experts
    from both the public and private sectors attended or participated in
    the review process for the draft roadmap. The roadmap was published in
    February and is being used in the Agriculture Team's first solicitation
    for proposals now underway. We are seeking new research and development
    ideas from the high priority targets identified by industry in the
    processing and utilization categories. Proposals are due by April 23rd
    and we plan to make our selections for financial awards by June 9th.
        Question. How is the Agriculture program being coordinated with
    other Department of Energy biomass programs and with the Department of
    Agriculture?
        Answer. The Office of Industrial Technologies' Agriculture Team is
    a member of the broader Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy (EERE) Bioenergy Team, and as such, is a full participant in the
    planning and activities of that new initiative. Representatives of
    EERE, as well as the Department's Office of Science, have been invited
    to key Agriculture Team events, such as the roadmapping workshops last
    summer; they also were given the opportunity last year to review the
    draft strategic vision and technology roadmap.
        Similarly, there is a broad and active web of interaction and
    collaboration between the Agriculture Team and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA). Various agencies at USDA have attended key meetings
    sponsored by the Agriculture Team and offered comments on key
    documents. The Agriculture Team likewise attends on a regular basis
    meetings of the USDA's Biobased Products Coordinating Council;
    participated in the Council's strategic review last fall; and, visited
    recently the USDA's National Center for Agricultural Utilization
    Research in Peoria, Illinois, to expand contacts collaboration with
    scientists at that premier facility. We are also exploring the
    possibility of adding a USDA staff member to the DOE Merit Review
    Committee for the Agriculture Team's first solicitation for research
    proposals.
        Question. What types of research will be funded in this program?
        Answer. The Agriculture Team will be guided in its research funding
    decisions by the suggestions and priorities set by its industry and
    grower partners. They came together voluntarily last year to form the
    Executive Steering Group, an informal oversight body responsible for
    producing the technology roadmap for Renewables Vision 2020. The group
    also recommended that the Agriculture Team focus its first solicitation
    on the roadmap barrier areas of processing and utilization; the team
    agreed. Those categories contain research and development targets for
    bioprocessing, bioseparations, and biocatalysis; all proposed projects
    also have to meet our office missions of reducing energy use and waste.
    We will be looking to establish a balanced portfolio of research
    projects, ranging from short to long term in duration and with a broad
    array of partners and topics to advance the strategic goals of the
    renewable bioproducts industry.
        Question. How is this research distinct from research being funded
    by the Department of Agriculture or other DOE programs?
        Answer. No other program in the federal government duplicates the
    unique research and development focus and decision-making process of
    the Office of Industrial Technology Agriculture Team. We are targeting
    100 percent of our research funding to the high priority targets
    established by our industry and grower partners in their published
    technology roadmap for renewable bioproducts. These targets are tied
    directly to the ambitious long-term goals set by the private sector for
    the use of crops, trees and agricultural wastes as basic chemical
    feedstocks for a wide range of consumer goods, such as plastics, paints
    and adhesives. Research projects also have to result in significant
    energy efficiency gains and reduction of wastes. Our solicitations are
    competitive and open to the public. The solicitations require teaming
    and 50 percent cost-sharing for proposals. Proposed projects will be
    screened and reviewed by a mix of industry and federal experts,
    including from the USDA.
        Question. Given the existence of the Agricultural Research Service
    with USDA, why is the Department of Energy involved in this area of
    research at all?
        Answer. The basic philosophy guiding the 1995 Memorandum of
    Understanding between the Departments of Agriculture and Energy was
    that the skills and technologies of the two departments are largely
    complementary and can be brought together to benefit the industry and
    agriculture of this country. The USDA's Agricultural Research Service
    (ARS) celebrates a proud tradition of research successes, but its
    focus, mission, and method of operations are nonetheless quite
    different than the ``Industries of the Future'' program's Agriculture
    Team. ARS is the main research arm for the USDA and that research is
    done basically by its own federal employees. In the area of renewable
    bioproducts, the Agricultural Research Service has tended to focus more
    on basic plant sciences and crop production issues, rather than on the
    efficient processing or utilization of those plants; the latter
    categories have traditionally been the strong suits of the Energy
    laboratories, with their expertise running more to the core physical
    sciences, high-speed computing, and sensors and controls. Moreover, the
    Agriculture Team's focus is energy-related and seeks new research ideas
    from the public through open, competitive solicitations. The
    Agriculture Team is working closely with a unique coalition from the
    agricultural, chemical and forestry communities across-the-board.
        To reach industry's stated goal of winning 10 percent of the market
    for basic chemical feedstocks from plants--a five-fold increase in just
    2 decades--will require the sustained and concerted efforts of a
    multitude of groups from both the public and private sector across the
    country; not just the ARS, but other relevant offices at USDA, as well
    as the DOE and possibly other federal and state agencies, academia,
    environmentalists, industry, and farmers. Much more inter-disciplinary
    collaboration and cross-fertilization of approaches also will be
    crucial to grow this new industrial sector. Success will require new
    mixes of talent and equipment. One part of one federal agency working
    alone will not be able to bring all of the necessary talent, equipment,
    ideas and funds to bear in the time required to help reduce our
    increasing reliance on imported oil.
        Question. Are there any specific barriers to USDA funds being used
    for research at DOE's national labs?
        Answer. No, there are not, but USDA would have to meet the rules
    and regulations governing ``Work for Others'' or any other type of
    technology transfer mechanisms, just like any other organization. The
    USDA can even propose to fund a portion of the work at a laboratory for
    a project to be submitted under the Agriculture Team's current
    solicitation, given that all the requirements of that Request for
    Proposals are met.
        Question. I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency is
    releasing a proposed rule that would dramatically reduce the amount of
    sulfur allowed in gasoline. Given that current sulfur reduction
    technologies are expensive and energy intensive, this rule could have
    significant impacts on the cost of gasoline and the amount of energy
    used to produce gasoline. What kind of research is the Department
    supporting to address this challenge?
        Answer. The Office of Industrial Technologies has been supporting
    pioneering research in gasoline biodesulfurization since fiscal year
    1997. This technology is likely to have lower capital and operating
    costs than the conventional technology, hydrodesulfurization, and, as
    such, has the potential to meet industry needs for a low cost
    technology which is also less energy intensive and retains the quality
    and value of the gasoline by not degrading octane. Over $1.8 million
    has been committed to this project since inception in fiscal year 1997.
        Additionally, the Office of Fossil Energy is supporting three
    research and analytical efforts within the Oil and Gas and Coal and
    Power programs, to produce cleaner transportation fuels. The Gas-to-
    Liquids program is concentrating on the development of ceramic membrane
    technology for combined air separation to produce oxygen and partial
    oxidation of natural gas to produce a lower cost synthesis gas. This
    synthesis gas could be used to produce ultra-clean transportation fuels
    which contain no sulfur or aromatics. The Oil program is supporting
    activity for effective environmental protection. It includes
    identifying various pollutants such as sulfur in petroleum, and
    developing process technology to reduce these potential pollutants more
    efficiently and at lower cost.
        The Advanced Clean Fuels Research Program for Indirect Liquefaction
    is supporting development of technology to convert synthesis gas from a
    variety of feedstocks, including coal, petroleum coke and refinery
    bottoms, to ultra-clean diesel and gasoline fuels. These fuels would
    not contain sulfur or aromatics and therefore would achieve
    significantly lower regional emissions of SO2, Volatile
    Organic Compounds, NOX, and particulate matter when blended
    with conventional transportation fuels.
        Question. In what programs is such research being proposed in
    fiscal year 2000 and at what amounts?
        Answer. Gasoline biodesulfurization is being pursued through the
    OIT Petroleum Industries of the Future (IOF) Program. $1 million has
    been proposed for all OIT IOF Petroleum projects in fiscal year 2000.
    The industry-formulated roadmap will prioritize industry needs. This
    will determine the percentage of total proposed budget to be allocated
    to this project in fiscal year 2000.
        The Fossil Energy Oil and Gas funding request for fiscal year 2000
    includes $5.3 million for gas-to-liquids and $3.4 million for effective
    environmental protection identification and development activities
    related to sulfur and other regional and global pollutant reduction.
    The Advanced Clean Fuels Research budget, also managed by DOE's Office
    of Fossil Energy, includes $6.6 million for indirect liquefaction
    activities to produce ultra-clean transportation fuels.
        Question. Does the budget include funds for research on
    biodesulfurization of coal? If so, in what programs and in what
    amounts?
        Answer. No funds are included in the OIT budget for
    biodesulfurization of coal research.
        Question. Has the petroleum industry identified this technology as
    a research priority in its industry ``vision'' process?
        Answer. The ``Technology Vision of the U.S. Downstream Petroleum
    Industry'' notes the prospect that bioscience will be increasingly
    introduced into refining operations as this technology advances. It
    states further that bioprocessing may be able to provide environmental,
    performance and cost benefits in fuel processing that the refining
    industry seeks and singles out the biodesulfurization of fuels as being
    a research priority in its vision.
                            advanced turbine systems
        Question. The budget request for the Advanced Turbine Systems
    program within the Office of Industrial Technologies is $12 million
    below the fiscal year 1999 level, reflecting the fact that the ATS
    program is nearing completion. How much has the federal government
    invested in the ATS program to date?
        Answer. The federal government has invested $151 million dollars in
    the Advanced Turbine Systems program (industrial) to date.
        Question. What has been the level of industry cost sharing?
        Answer. Overall program cost share is 50 percent. Specifically,
    Solar Turbines cost share is 69 percent, Allison Engines cost share is
    38 percent. The materials base technology program cost share is
    approximately 25 percent
        Question. Do we yet know whether the technology developed in this
    program will meet or exceed original program goals?
        Answer. The Department is confident that the advanced engine
    developed in this program will exceed the 40-percent efficiency goal
    and demonstrate single digit emissions. Thus far, cost, reliability,
    maintainability, durability and availability remain on target to meet
    goals. Once the technology demonstration is completed, the Department
    will confirm.
        Question. Is the Department and its industry partners confident
    that the technology developed in this program will move rapidly into
    the marketplace?
        Answer. The Department and its industry partners are confident that
    most of the technology is already moving into the marketplace.
    Technology, such as the Mercury 50, Solar Turbines Advanced Turbine
    Systems is well position to move rapidly in the market with its orders
    booked for 1999 and the year 2000. Other sub-system technologies
    including coatings and low sulfur alloy development are currently being
    incorporated in the supplier base. For example, Howmett and PCI are
    currently processing alloys with the low sulfur technology developed
    under the program. Sub-system advanced technologies such as ceramics
    and catalytic combustion will not move rapidly into the market without
    additional funding.
                       energy information administration
        Question. The budget request for EIA includes funds to develop
    better modeling capabilities for international carbon mitigation
    analysis. How many years does EIA anticipate it will take to develop
    this capability to the planned level?
        Answer. Assuming receipt of the requested funding in fiscal year
    2000, EIA will need an additional 2 years to complete the development
    and integration of the modeling enhancements to attain the planned
    analysis capabilities level.
        Question. Does EIA anticipate future increases in funding
    requirements beyond that requested in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. EIA does anticipate investment funds will be needed beyond
    that requested in fiscal year 2000. Specifically, EIA anticipates $1.0
    million will be needed in fiscal year 2001, and $500,000 will be needed
    in fiscal year 2002 representing the minimum level needed to develop
    the modeling capabilities required to provide reliable assessment of
    carbon mitigation alternatives and reliable assessment of our potential
    trading partners mitigation efforts. As with any analysis or modeling
    effort, this level of funding provides a certain capability. Additional
    funding could provide additional regional detail, a longer forecast
    time horizon, additional policy analysis capabilities, or a faster
    development schedule.
                               ramjet technology
        Question. The Committee has been monitoring the development of
    technology that applies ramjet technology from the aerospace industry
    to electric power generation. The Committee further understands that a
    prototype of this technology has been constructed, and that a proposal
    has been submitted to the Department to test this prototype engine
    using coal mine methane as a fuel. Is the Department aware of this
    proposal?
        Answer. An unsolicited proposal was received from Ramgen by the
    Department several weeks ago. The three-phase, 3-year effort would
    demonstrate the use of the Ramgen engine on coal bed methane.
        Question. What is the status of the proposal?
        Answer. The Federal Energy Technology Center is in the process of
    reviewing the proposal.
        Question. What are the potential benefits of successfully
    demonstrating and deploying this type of technology?
        Answer. The market potential for the Ramgen engine would be a full
    range of distributed generation applications ranging from unit sizes of
    750 kilowatts to 40 megawatts. The Ramgen engine design is expected (by
    Ramgen) to allow capital costs which are one-third lower than
    equivalent power systems. Ramgen also expects the engine to have the
    ability to operate on a wide range of fuels while maintaining high
    efficiency and low nitrous oxide emissions.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
                           the role of fossil energy
        Question. What percentage of the energy needs of the United States
    are currently supplied by fossil fuels?
        Answer. In 1997, the latest year for which complete data are
    available, fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) accounted
    for 85 percent of the nation's energy needs.
        Question. What percentage of the nation's energy needs are fossil
    fuels expected to supply in the year 2020?
        Answer. According to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
    Annual Energy Outlook 1999 reference case, fossil fuels are expected to
    supply 90 percent of the nation's energy needs by 2020.
        Question. What percentage of the energy needs of the world are
    currently supplied by fossil fuels?
        Answer. In 1996, the latest year for which complete data are
    available, fossil fuels accounted for almost 86 percent of the world's
    energy needs.
        Question. What percentage of the world's energy needs are fossil
    fuels expected to supply in the year 2020?
        Answer. According to the EIA's International Energy Outlook 1998
    reference case, fossil fuels are expected to supply 89 percent of the
    world's energy needs by 2020.
        Question. How much electricity does the United States currently
    generate each year? How much does the world generate?
        Answer. In 1997, the last year for which complete data are
    available, the United States generated 3.5 trillion kilowatthours of
    electricity. Total world electricity generation in 1996, the last year
    of complete data, was 13.1 trillion kilowatthours.
        Question. What is the projected annual electricity generation for
    the United States and the world by the year 2020?
        Answer. EIA projects in its Annual Energy Outlook 1999 reference
    case that electricity generation will be 4.8 trillion kilowatthours in
    2020. EIA's International Energy Outlook 1998 reference case projects
    total world electricity consumption will be 23.1 trillion kilowatthours
    in 2020. Assuming a similar ratio between generation and consumption as
    existed in 1996, generation would then be about 25.2 trillion
    kilowatthours in 2020.
        Question. How much electricity in the United States is currently
    generated by coal-fired power plants each year?
        Answer. EIA estimates coal-fired utility power plants generated 1.8
    trillion kilowatthours of electricity in 1997.
        Question. How much electricity will be generated from coal in the
    year 2020?
        Answer. EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1999 reference case projects
    that coal-fired generating units will produce 2.4 trillion
    kilowatthours of electricity in 2020.
        Question. What are comparable numbers for the world?
        Answer. EIA's International Energy Outlook 1998 reference case
    estimates world coal consumption for electricity generation in 1995 to
    have been 51 quadrillion (quads) British thermal units (Btu) and a
    projected 87 quads Btu in 2020. Based on an average of 10,500 Btu per
    kilowatthour of electricity generated, total coal-fired generation
    would have been approximately 4.8 trillion kilowatthours in 1995,
    rising to 8.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2020.
        Question. How many gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity are
    projected to be built in the United States in the next 20 to 50 years?
        Answer. Between 1997 and 2020, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1999
    reference case projects that 31 gigawatts of coal-fired generating
    capacity will be built in the United States. EIA does not project
    beyond 2020.
        Question. How many gigawatts of current coal-fired capacity are
    expected to receive major rehabilitation?
        Answer. EIA does not project major rehabilitation for coal-fired
    generating units. It is assumed that plants are maintained at
    sufficient operating condition through their annual maintenance plans.
    It is generally assumed in EIA's projections that coal plants will
    operate at least 45 years, with extensions of up to 20 years depending
    on the cost of competing new technologies. In EIA's Annual Energy
    Outlook 1999 references case, approximately 3 gigawatts of coal-fired
    generating plants are projected to retire between 1997 and 2020. EIA
    projections do not go beyond 2020.
        Question. Are generating costs projected to decline over the next
    20 years for coal-fired and gas-fired power plants; and if so, by how
    much?
        Answer. Generating costs (fixed and variable operating costs,
    including the cost of fuel) are projected to decline for coal-fired gas
    plants, but to rise slightly for gas-fired plants between 1997 and
    2020. EIA estimates that the operating costs of a typical coal steam
    unit running at a 70-percent capacity factor will decline by about 27
    percent from 1997 to 2020, to about 1.4 cents per kilowatthour produced
    from an estimated 1.9 cents in 1997. For a natural gas combined- cycle
    unit, the operating cost is expected to go up slightly, from 2.2 cents
    per kilowatthour to 2.3 cents per kilowatthour, mainly because of
    higher fuel costs (all costs are in 1997 dollars). The decision to
    build new generating capacity will also be based on capital costs,
    which are approximately twice as high for coal as they are for natural
    gas.
        Question. In the transportation sector, what percentage of energy
    consumption is currently met with fossil fuels? How does that
    percentage change in the next 20 years?
        Answer. In 1997, fossil fuels accounted to 99.5 percent of energy
    consumption in the transportation sector. By 2020, EIA's Annual Energy
    Outlook 1999 reference case projects that fossil fuels will account for
    98.3 percent of total transportation energy consumption, due to
    additional consumption of ethanol and electricity.
        Question. What can the Department of Energy do in the future to
    better educate and inform the other parts of the Administration as to
    the importance of and the economic and environmental benefits of the
    fossil energy research program?
        Answer. We believe that DOE has successfully worked within the
    Administration to convey fossil energy information and analyses. For
    example, our development of a ``state-of-the-science'' analysis of
    carbon sequestration technology--in preparation for ``roadmapping'' a
    coordinated research and development program--was developed jointly
    with the DOE Office of Science, in close cooperation with other federal
    agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, in addition to others.
    Our research and development efforts in alternative liquids from both
    coal and natural gas are being linked closely with the development of
    high-efficiency, cleaner engines in DOE's Partnership for New
    Generation Vehicles overseen by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency.
    Our efforts in methane hydrates research are being planned as an
    Administration-wide effort involving the U.S. Geological Survey and the
    Naval Research Laboratory. Recently our Federal Energy Technology
    Center signed a ``memorandum of understanding'' with the U.S. Office of
    Surface Mining to apply fossil energy technologies to mitigate acid
    mine drainage and other environmental concerns associated with mining.
                          fossil energy research--coal
        Question. What is the future of coal as an energy source for both
    domestic and international energy markets, and how does the fiscal year
    2000 budget proposal contribute to this future?
        Answer. According to estimates by the Energy Information
    Administration, domestic consumption of coal will increase 28 percent
    between 1996 and 2020. During the same period, coal consumption in the
    rest of the world is expected to increase 80 percent. Beyond 2020, coal
    use is expected to continue to increase at a substantial rate,
    especially in developing Asia. These projections assume implementation
    of current environmental regulations. They do not consider, for
    example, new regulations for meeting PM 2.5 ambient air quality
    standards in the United States or possible future climate change
    mitigation requirements.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget anticipates such requirements and will
    contribute to reducing the environmental impacts of coal use as well as
    reducing the cost of electricity generated from coal. Vision 21 coal-
    fired power plants will generate electricity 10 percent cheaper than
    current coal technology while producing near-zero emissions of
    SO2, NOX and particulate. Our cost goal for
    reducing CO2 emissions, should that be required, is $10 per
    ton of carbon. These low emission characteristics will become
    especially important in a world with a greatly increased population
    combined with global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Long-
    term economic, yet environmentally sound, energy from coal will
    contribute to growth of the domestic economy as well as economies of
    developing nations.
        Question. What is the long-range role of coal as an energy source
    for this country and the world?
        Answer. In the coming decades, coal use is expected to increase
    substantially in the United States and increase even more rapidly in
    developing nations which have economies and populations that are
    growing rapidly. According to the Energy Information Administration,
    domestic coal use will increase 28percent by 2020 while increasing 80
    percent in the rest of the world.
        Coal is an attractive fuel because it is relatively plentiful in
    many countries, including the in the United States, and low in cost.
    However, coal use also presents environmental problems. In the past,
    collaborative research and development between DOE and industry have
    found solutions to these types of problems. It is our belief that we
    can continue to enable the United States to enjoy the benefits of low
    cost coal use by development of additional technologies to protect the
    environment.
        Question. How many years worth of coal reserves and resources does
    our country have?
        Answer. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has recently developed
    estimates of the U.S. coal resource. The USGS publication, Coal
    Availability Studies: A New Look at Resource Estimates, available from
    the USGS web site, indicates that the coal demonstrated reserve base is
    475 billion tons, or enough to meet projected energy needs for almost
    200 years, based on current production rates (not all of the reserve
    base is recoverable). The current production rate for coal in the
    United States is 1.1 billion tons per year.
        Question. How many years worth of natural gas?
        Answer. The USGS has recently developed estimates of the U.S.
    natural gas resource base. A publication available from the USGS web
    site, A Summary of the U.S. Geological Survey 1995 National Assessment
    of Oil and Gas Resources, indicates that the Unites States has 1,073
    trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. The natural gas reserves are
    roughly equivalent to 55 years of supply based on current production
    rates of approximately 19 trillion cubic feet per year.
        Question. What are some of the success stories associated with coal
    research and development funded by the Department of Energy?
        Answer. Below are listed several success stories of the DOE Coal
    Research and Development and Clean Coal Technology (CCT) programs. The
    CCT successes--mostly demonstrations of pre-commercial, new
    technologies--could not have occurred without earlier DOE research and
    development. The research and development successes that culminated in
    CCT demonstrations include the following:
      --Low NOX burners: Far less expensive than preceding
            technology for removing NOX (oxides of nitrogen,
            precursors of smog) emissions, about one-half of U.S. coal-
            fired capacity today has these burners. Sales to date are about
            $1.5 billion, and will likely double by January 1, 2000.
      --Atmospheric Fluidized Bed power plants: DOE/industry investments in
            this clean technology have resulted to date in at least $9
            billion in domestic and foreign sales ($6.2 billion domestic,
            $2.8 billion foreign).
      --Advanced Scrubbers: Three advanced scrubbers have been demonstrated
            by DOE, one of which earned Power magazine's 1993 Power Plant
            of the Year award.
      --Tomorrow's Power Plants (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or
            IGCC, and Pressurized Fluidized Bed, or PFBC): These pre-
            commercial, virtually pollution-free plants have the potential
            of far higher efficiencies (thus, 20 to 40 percent lower
            CO2 levels).
      --The Rosebud SynCoal and Encoal
            processes are two different ways to upgrade low-rank coals to
            cleaner, more efficient fuels. Both processes are being
            marketed worldwide.
        DOE supported coal research and development successes that occurred
    with no involvement with the CCT program include the following:
      --Microcel coal cleaning, now a commercial technology worldwide.
      --Super 9 Chrome Alloy, which allows increased efficiency in power
            plants because of its ability to withstand higher heat than
            predecessor materials.
      --Tomorrow's Gas Turbines, initiated in 1992, has already resulted in
            many new commercial components to increase efficiencies of
            turbines, using either natural gas or gasified fuels.
      --The ASPEN Model, fully commercialized computer software for energy/
            chemical firms.
      --Toughened Ceramics, which increase efficiencies in many energy and
            power uses.
      --Neural Networks for Pollution Control (GNOCIS system), which
            continually adjusts boiler firing conditions, reducing
            NOX emissions by 15 percent while increasing
            efficiency. GNOCIS will be installed at 21 U.S. sites this
            year.
      --Several spinoff applications, including components for a better,
            safer artificial heart, and technology now used for more cost-
            effective aluminum recycling, with other possible applications,
            including vitrification of low-level radioactive waste.
                         advanced clean fuels research
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a 22-percent
    decrease below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for coal preparation
    and a 48-percent decrease below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for
    Direct Liquefaction. What is driving the reductions proposed for these
    programs?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Advanced Clean
    Fuels Research program continues its transformation to a focus
    primarily upon the environment. Its emphasis is on affordable, ultra-
    clean, low emission transportation fuels, composite solid feedstocks
    which incorporate biomass, and light-weight, high-strength premium
    carbon products which will:
      --Enable U.S. vehicle manufacturers to meet more stringent vehicle
            emissions standards,
      --Improve the nation's regional air quality by reducing emissions of
            SO2, NOX, Volatile Organic Compounds, and
            particulates, and
      --Reduce potential global climate change gases.
        The activities proposed are market driven to insure program
    relevancy, highly leveraged with private cost-sharing dollars, and of
    significant interest to industry. The budgets proposed are appropriate
    to continue this refocus in fiscal year 2000. In line with this
    thinking, emphasis is being placed on Indirect Liquefaction
    technologies that will permit:
      --Coproduction of highly efficient electric power, ultra-low
            emissions transportation fuels, and strategic chemicals;
      --Development of a ``new generation'' of ultra-clean transportation
            fuels, compatible with the existing infrastructure, which are
            to be used in advanced high efficiency engines being developed
            by the Office of Transportation Technologies' PNGV and heavy
            vehicle programs; and
      --Production of hydrogen from fossil resources without CO2
            by-product generation (since many now believe fossil fuels are
            the primary resource capable of enabling the ``hydrogen
            economy'').
        The Direct Liquefaction program is primarily looking toward the
    development of longer term advanced research activities, and the Coal
    Preparation program is primarily emphasizing environmentally preferred
    feedstocks, premium carbon products, and the development of
    precombustion Hazardous Air Pollutants removal technologies (for
    example, mercury).
        Question. Is either of these programs being de-emphasized?
        Answer. Current Direct Liquefaction Technology is being de-
    emphasized because there is little commercial interest in this
    technology at this time and little prospect to its use domestically.
    Advanced research aimed at significant, innovative changes to direct
    liquefaction concepts is being emphasized instead. The Coal Preparation
    program is being re-focused to emphasize environmentally preferred
    feedstocks, premium carbon products, and the development of
    precombustion HAP's removal technologies (for example, mercury). The
    budget proposed is appropriate to continue this refocus in fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. What research activities would be undertaken if coal
    preparation was funded at a level of $5 million above the fiscal year
    1999 level?
        Answer. If additional funds in the amount of $5 million were made
    available, research would be initiated in advanced, cross-cutting
    separations technologies, and sensors and controls applied to all
    phases of mineral mining, extraction, and processing. Additionally,
    currently sponsored work would be increased in the use of coal as a
    non-fuel resource (that is, premium carbon products), the development
    of coal/waste/biomass composite fuels, the development of coal
    combustion by-product separation and use, and the development of
    technologies permitting the precombustion control of HAPS (for example,
    mercury).
        The Advanced Separations Technology Initiative ($2 million) would
    incorporate work for enhanced, environmentally benign processing
    operations designed to minimize wastes and reduce costs. The Advanced
    Sensors and Controls Technology Initiative ($2 million) would
    investigate the development of non-intrusive diagnostics, directed
    toward resource mapping, and sensors and controls for ``smart'' mining
    machines.
        Additional funds ($1 million) would also be used to expand the
    number of Phase II projects participating in our existing Grand
    Challenge program component, as well as the number of projects
    participating in our premium carbon products from coal program
    component, both currently sponsored program activities. In the Grand
    Challenge area funds would be used to support the development of coal/
    waste/biomass composite fuels, the development of coal combustion by-
    product separation and use, and the development of precombustion HAPS
    control technologies. These on-going activities are cost-shared by
    industry at more than 50 percent, and will be demonstrated at
    commercial sites. In the production of premium light-weight, high-
    strength carbon products from coal funds will be used to sponsor
    additional cost-shared, industry-driven projects as part of the
    Consortium for Premium Carbon Products from Coal.
        Question. What would be the benefits of these activities?
        Answer. The work supported in the development of innovative
    concepts for coal preparation would produce several benefits. Advanced
    Separations Technology Initiative will develop technology that can
    support sustainable mining operations characterized by near zero
    wastes, reduced ground-water pollution, and improved energy
    efficiencies. Advanced Sensors and Control Technology Initiative will
    permit rapid discovery and exploitation of coal resources and other
    minerals while minimizing the production of excess wastes. When linked
    to ``smart'' mining machines and their attendant sensor arrays,
    innovative diagnostic technologies will reduce costs of coal and
    minerals production and minimize environmental impacts by combining
    resource mapping, real-time recovery, and on-site processing.
        Strong industry, cost-shared, participation in each of the Phase II
    projects of the Grand Challenge program, as well as in the projects of
    the premium carbon products from coal program, is accelerating the
    identification and development of innovative technologies that, when
    developed, will expand markets, ensure market relevance, and instigate
    early commercialization of technologies that will expand the use of
    coal as a source of energy in an environmentally responsive manner.
        The work ongoing in the area of Coal Liquefaction has been
    refocused to develop technologies and processed to produce affordable,
    ultra-clean, low emission transportation fuels that will: enable U.S.
    vehicle manufacturers to meet more stringent vehicle emissions
    standards; improve the nation's regional air quality by reducing
    emissions of SO2, NOX, Volatile Organic Compounds
    (VOC), and particulates generated by the transportation sector; reduce
    potential global climate change gases; enable the coproduction of
    highly efficient electric power, ultra-low emissions transportation
    fuels, and strategic chemicals; produce a ``new generation'' of ultra-
    clean transportation fuels, compatible with the existing
    infrastructure, which can be used in advanced engines being developed
    by the Office of Transportation Technologies PNGV and heavy vehicle
    programs, to significantly increase their efficiency and performance.
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes to increase
    funding for Indirect Liquefaction. A portion of this funding is to
    initiate advanced shift, separation research for hydrogen preparation.
    What benefits would come from this higher funding level?
        Answer. The Advanced Clean Fuels Research program (of which
    indirect liquefaction is a significant portion) continues to emphasize
    the production of next generation ultra-low emission fuels, and the
    development of multiple feedstock, multiple-product, energy
    coproduction plants. In the ultra-low emission fuels area, we are
    developing gasification based Fischer-Tropsch and oxygenated fuels,
    fuel blendstocks, and fuel additives capable of achieving EPA's 2012
    vehicle emission targets (that is, 1 gram NOX, 0.05 gram/
    bhp/hr particulates) when used in combination with advanced diesel
    engine power plants currently under development. In the coproduction
    plant area, we are developing gasification based plants capable of
    using coal (or coal in combination with other feedstocks such as
    petroleum coke, refinery bottoms, refinery wastes, and biomass), and of
    economically coproducing low emission clean fuels, strategic chemicals,
    and electric power (for either export or internal consumption).
        The increased funding requested will be used to perform technical,
    economic, and market analysis, preliminary concept design and initial
    supporting research for at least three gasification based coproduction
    concepts (to be sited at an existing refinery, chemical plant, and
    power plant), each capable of using multiple feedstocks, and producing
    multiple products; and to initiate development a ``new generation'' of
    advanced ultra-low emission transportation fuels to be used in advanced
    vehicles systems, such as the highly efficient diesel engines for
    sports/utility, light truck, and passenger vans currently being
    developed by the Department's Office of Transportation Technologies.
        DOE will also continue to develop key supporting technologies, such
    as those which can economically produce low cost hydrogen and synthesis
    gas from fossil feedstocks, while concomitantly reducing the amount of
    CO2 produced. The hydrogen preparation activity intends to
    develop advanced separations technology capable of producing low cost
    hydrogen from mixed gas streams, and from synthesis gas in a clean and
    affordable manner.
        These activities will keep to foster lower cost clean fuels and
    improved regional air quality with reduced emissions of SO2,
    NOX, VOC, and particulates. Each of these program components
    is market driven and highly leveraged with participant cost sharing in
    order to insure program relevancy and industry interest.
        Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposed $3 million to
    complete Phase IV of the Low Emission Boiler System (LEBS) program
    which involves the design construction and operation of a proof-of-
    concept facility. This project, known as the Prairie Energy Project,
    will operate as a source of independent power and will serve as a
    showcase for LEBS technology. What is the total estimated cost of the
    Prairie Energy Project?
        Answer. The total cost of Phase IV of the LEBS program is $127
    million. The estimated cost of the proof-of-concept facility alone is
    $113 million.
        Question. How much of this project is cost-shared?
        Answer. DOE is funding 27 percent of the project's cost.
        Question. What are the other sources of funding beyond DOE's
    contribution of $34 million in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
        Answer. The sources of funds for LEBS Phase IV in 1998, 1999, and
    2000 are as follows:

                                              LEBS PHASE IV FUNDING SOURCES
                                                 [In million of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal years--
                                   Source                                 Other  ---------------------------  Total
                                                                          years     1998     1999     2000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. DOE...........................................................        1       15       15        3       34
    State of Illinois..................................................  .......  .......        3       22       25
    Owner..............................................................       11        1        3        3       18
    Lender Debt........................................................  .......  .......  .......       50       50
                                                                        --------------------------------------------
          Total........................................................       12       16       21       78      127
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. How much of the total estimated cost of the project is
    for construction versus non-construction?
        Answer. The total cost of Phase IV of the LEBS program is $127
    million. The estimated construction cost of the proof-of-concept
    facility alone is $113 million. Thus, non-construction represents $14
    million of the project.
        Question. When will the effort be completed?
        Answer. Commercial test operations are scheduled to be complete in
    December 2001. The LEBS Phase IV is scheduled to be complete in June
    2002.
        Question. Why is DOE involved in developing this power plant which
    will operate commercially after the test phase?
        Answer. This technology developed competitively in a partnership
    between government and industry, reduces NOX (an ozone
    precursor) and SOX, and is more efficient (less greenhouse
    gas per kilowatt) than existing technology. To facilitate early
    commercial use and showcase the technology the DOE cost-shared the
    design, construction and test operation of a proof-of-concept facility.
        Question. A significant increase is being proposed in fiscal year
    2000 for the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. What would these
    funds be used for?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request of $38.661 million
    represents a 19-percent increase over the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation of $32.388 million for the Integrated Gasification
    Combined Cycle (IGCC) Program. This increase in funding ($6.273
    million) would support the research and development needs for the
    Vision 21 program. The Vision 21 program is geared to the development
    of energy plants of the future that will be highly efficient facilities
    producing an array of energy products while simultaneously achieving
    near-zero discharge of solid, liquid, and gaseous pollutants. The
    energy products include electrical power, steam for industrial heating,
    hydrogen, environmentally superior liquid fuels, and premium chemicals.
    Gasification-based technologies being developed in the IGCC program are
    major ``building blocks'' of the Vision 21 energy plants from which
    these energy products can be produced. Gasification must become more
    feedstock flexible, that is, capable of processing all carbon-based
    materials including coals of all ranks, petroleum coke and residuals,
    industrial and municipal waste, and blends, while simultaneously
    producing a high quality, extremely clean synthesis gas that can be
    integrated with downstream advanced technologies such as hydrogen
    membranes, synthesis gas conversion, fuel cells, advanced combustion,
    and future ``H'' class gas turbines.
        Specifically, the increase in funding will be used to continue
    development of the advanced transport gasifier at the Wilsonville PSDF;
    complete construction and shakedown of the Gas Processing Development
    Unit at FETC; investigate advanced gas cleaning technologies for ultra-
    clean synthesis gas for integration with fuel cell and co-production
    technologies; develop ion transport membranes for low-cost oxygen
    production from air; develop membrane technology for high-temperature
    hydrogen separation; investigate concepts for CO2
    concentration; develop advanced fuel cell systems for coal-based
    gasification/combustion applications in conjunction with gas-based fuel
    cell system development; and conduct experimental investigations on the
    co-feeding of coal with various carbon-based feedstocks. The IGCC
    funding profile is as follows:

                              IGCC FUNDING PROFILE
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal years--
                    Activity                ----------------------   Change
                                                1999       2000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program Management Support.............        223        381       +158
    Gasification Systems...................     11,244     14,045    + 2,801
    Gas Cleaning & Conditioning............      2,605      3,761    + 1,156
    Products/By-products Utilization.......      1,050        700       -350
    System Analysis........................      3,791      3,524       -267
    Vision 21 Support......................     13,475  \1\ 16,25    + 2,775
                                                                0
                                            --------------------------------
          Total............................     32,388     38,661     +6,273
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ $4,950 included for Fuel Cell for Vision 21.

        Question. What is the Federal Energy Technology Center's role in
    this program?
        Answer. The Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) is responsible
    for the implementation and administration of all research and
    development activities for the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
    (IGCC) Program. These activities include both in-house research and
    cooperative developmental efforts with industrial stakeholders. FETC's
    in-house research team continues to conduct both laboratory and bench-
    scale particulate removal and sorbent research for power generation
    applications and is expanding into the production of ultra-clean
    synthesis gas for Vision 21 applications. The capabilities of FETC's
    new Gas Processing Development Unit at Morgantown, West Virginia, are
    also being expanded to investigate advanced gas cleaning methods for
    integrating gasification technology with the Vision 21 energy plants.
    FETC's scientists have also become an integral part of the advanced
    hydrogen separation membrane development effort, focusing on the
    evaluation and performance testing of high temperature membranes being
    developed by ANL and ORNL for the separation of hydrogen from shifted
    synthesis gas. In addition, as a result of their prior experience in
    CO2 hydrates, FETC in-house scientists are assisting in the
    development of a low-temperature approach for separating hydrogen from
    shifted synthesis gas via the formation of CO2 hydrates.
    FETC's IGCC Product Team is responsible for strategic program
    development, planning, and outreach, while project managers administer
    the individual research and development contracts with various
    technology developers.
                                   vision 21
        Question. Explain the concept of the Department's ``Vision 21
    Energy-Plex.''
        Answer. Vision 21 is a government-industry-academia collaboration
    to develop technology that will effectively remove all environmental
    concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels for producing
    electricity and liquid transportation fuels and will almost double the
    efficiency of coal powerplants. The approach is to develop technology
    modules that respond to key public needs (for example, the production
    of clean burning transportation fuels, clean, efficient, affordable,
    electricity generation from all of our fossil fuels, alleviating
    municipal waste issues by using this waste as a feedstock) and can be
    integrated into a variety of configurations to meet specific market
    needs in multiple applications (for example, electricity generation,
    fuels/chemicals coproduction, cogeneration). Vision 21 builds on a
    portfolio of technologies already being developed, including clean coal
    combustion and gasification, turbines, fuel cells, and fuels synthesis.
    To these, the Vision 21 program adds other critical or ``enabling''
    technologies such as membrane gas separation, advanced combustion
    technologies, and alternative fuel utilization technologies.
        Vision 21 is part of the Department of Energy's work to maintain
    our nation's economic prosperity by ensuring a future supply of
    affordable, clean energy. The specific performance targets, costs, and
    timing for Vision 21 plants are as follows:

      SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TARGETS, COSTS, AND TIMING FOR VISION 21 PLANTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Efficiency-Electricity Generation......  60 percent for coal-based
                                              systems (based on fuel HHV);
                                              75 percent for natural gas-
                                              based systems (LHV) with no
                                              credit for cogenerated steam.
    Efficiency-Combined Electricity/Heat...  Overall thermal efficiency
                                              above 85 percent; also meets
                                              above efficiency goals for
                                              electricity.
    Efficiency-Fuels Only Plant............  When producing fuels such as H2
                                              or liquid transportation fuels
                                              alone from coal, 75 percent
                                              fuels utilization efficiency
                                              (LHV).
    Environmental..........................  Near zero emissions of sulfur
                                              and nitrogen oxides,
                                              particulate matter, trace
                                              elements, and organic
                                              compounds; 40-50 percent
                                              reduction in CO2 emissions by
                                              efficiency improvement; 100
                                              percent reduction with
                                              sequestration.
    Costs..................................  Aggressive targets for capital
                                              and operating costs and RAM;
                                              products of Vision 21 plants
                                              must be cost-competitive with
                                              market clearing prices when
                                              they are commercially
                                              deployed.
    Timing.................................  Major benefits, e.g. improved
                                              gasifiers and combustors, gas
                                              separation membranes, begin by
                                              2006 or earlier; designs for
                                              most Vision 21 subsystems and
                                              modules available by 2012;
                                              Vision 21 commercial plant
                                              designs available by 2015.

        Question. What is the goal of ``Vision 21'' and how does it fit
    into the overall Coal Power program?
        Answer. The primary goal of the Vision 21 program is to close to
    double the efficiency of coal power plants and to effectively remove
    all environmental concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels for
    producing electricity, liquid transportation fuels, and high value
    chemicals. The approach is to develop and integrate high-performance
    technology modules to create energy plants which are cost competitive,
    with zero emissions, and which allow us to responsibly and cost
    effectively use all of our abundant fossil resources.
        Vision 21 builds on the technological successes in the current Coal
    and Power Systems, Natural Gas, and Fuels programs. The aggressive
    goals set for Vision 21 systems demand innovative approaches along with
    dramatic improvements in cost and performance of our technologies.
    Early spinoffs from the Vision 21 program are expected to provide near-
    term economic and performance benefits to the U.S. economy in general
    and to the DOE sponsored energy products in particular.
        Question. What program activities are supported by the key
    technology program elements of the Coal and Power Systems program?
        Answer. Our economic future depends on a supply of affordable
    electricity to run our factories and heat and light our offices and
    homes, and on clean fuels for transportation. The bottom line is that
    the United States will need to rely on fossil fuels for the major share
    of its electricity and transportation fuels well into the 21st century.
    To achieve radical improvements in the performance of fossil fuel-based
    power systems and to virtually eliminate environmental issues as a
    barrier to fossil fuel use will require a new paradigm for the
    development of both technology and systems that incorporate the
    technology. Vision 21 is the Department of Energy's role in helping to
    maintain our nation's economic prosperity by ensuring a future supply
    of affordable, clean energy.
        Vision 21 activities are supported by the Integrated Gasification
    Combined Cycle (IGCC), Pressurized Fluidized Bed (PFBC), Fuel Cells,
    Indirect Fired Cycle/High Performance Power Systems (IFC/HIPPS),
    Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS), Advanced Research and Technology
    Development (AR&TD) and the Advanced Clean Fuels (ACF) programs. Under
    the IGCC program, Vision 21 activities include: advanced oxygen,
    hydrogen, and carbon dioxide separation technologies; advanced gas
    cleaning technologies for fuel cell application; advanced IGCC/fuel
    cell system studies; experimental investigation on co-firing fuels. The
    PFBC program will support Vision 21 activities which include co-firing
    with carbon neutral fuels, cycle studies which examine carbon dioxide
    recycle, oxygen enrichment, and integration of fuel cells and other
    components. In the fuel cell program, Vision 21 efforts are focused on
    performance enhancement and cost reduction of fuel cell hybrid systems.
    Some advanced heat exchanger work and combustion studies in IFC program
    will directly support the Vision 21 program. The ATS program will fund
    fuel flexible and high efficiency turbine work for Vision 21. The AR&TD
    program will continue research toward the Virtual Demonstration Plant,
    CO2 capture, and sequestration in support of Vision 21 power
    and fuels complex; will conduct systems analysis of Vision 21 concepts
    to identify critical research areas; will implement projects to develop
    critical enabling technologies for advanced power and fuel systems in
    support of Vision 21 and incorporate the results into the Virtual
    Demonstration. Finally, the ACF program will study options for
    incorporating fuel and chemical modules in Vision 21 plants and conduct
    research on fuel and chemical production aspects of Vision 21
    technologies.
        Question. How much is included in the fiscal year 2000 budget for
    each of these program activities in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
        Answer. The funding for Vision 21 from each of the program areas is
    listed in the following table:

                                VISION 21 FUNDING
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal years--
                    Program                 --------------------------------
                                                1998       1999       2000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IGCC...................................  .........     14,000     16,250
    PFBC...................................  .........  .........      1,600
    Fuel Cells.............................  .........  .........      5,085
    IFC....................................  .........      1,000      1,000
    ATS....................................  .........  .........        800
    AR&TD..................................  .........      2,990      3,457
    ACF....................................  .........  .........        575
                                            --------------------------------
          Total............................  .........     17,990     28,767
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. If there is an increase in fiscal year 2000 over the
    fiscal year 1999 enacted level, explain what the increase is for.
        Answer. Our economic future depends on a supply of affordable
    electricity to run our factories and heat and light our offices and
    homes and on clean fuels for transportation. The bottom line is that
    the United States will need to rely on fossil fuels for the major share
    of its electricity and transportation fuels well into the 21st century.
    To achieve radical improvements in the performance of fossil fuel-based
    power systems and to virtually eliminate environmental issues as a
    barrier to fossil fuel use will require a new paradigm for the
    development of both technology and systems that incorporate the
    technology. Vision 21 is the Department of Energy's role in helping to
    maintain our nation's economic prosperity by ensuring a future supply
    of affordable, clean energy.
        In fiscal year 2000, increases in Vision 21 activities occur in all
    program areas except the IFC. The PFBC, Fuel Cell, ATS, and ACF
    programs had no dollars specifically for Vision 21 activities in fiscal
    year 1999. The IGCC fiscal year 2000 higher funding level for Vision 21
    activities will be used to increase levels of effort in advanced gas
    separation, gas cleaning, fuel cells integration, and co-firing
    investigations. Fiscal year 2000 funds in the PFBC program support co-
    firing with carbon neutral fuels, cycle studies which examine carbon
    dioxide recycle, oxygen enrichment, and integration of fuel cells and
    other components. In the fuel cell program, the fiscal year 2000 Vision
    21 funds support efforts which are focused on performance enhancement
    and cost reduction of fuel cell hybrid systems. Vision 21 fiscal year
    2000 ATS program funds support fuel flexible and high efficiency
    turbine work. In the AR&TD program, work on advanced materials for
    hydrogen and oxygen separation membranes progresses from the initial
    solicitation stage of fiscal year 1999 to working on breakthrough
    concept in fiscal year 2000. Finally, with fiscal year 2000 Vision 21
    funds, the ACF program will study options for incorporating fuel and
    chemical modules in Vision 21 plants and conduct research on fuel and
    chemical production aspects of Vision 21 technologies.
                      fossil energy research--natural gas
                                methane hydrates
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $1,985,000 for
    methane hydrates research and development. What specifically will these
    funds be used for?
        Answer. While specific procurement plans will not be finalized
    until appropriations have been approved by Congress, the Department
    anticipates allocating the funding as follows:
      --Approximately 50 to 55 percent would be used for characterizing
            methane hydrate reservoirs. This will involve geologic,
            geochemical, microbiological, and thermodynamic studies of
            hydrates, the development of a data base documenting hydrate
            locations and research results, and collection and analysis of
            Arctic and marine hydrates.
      --Approximately 20 to 25 percent will be used for laboratory tests
            and to develop models of the ways hydrates dissociate. This
            research would be a precursor to developing specific production
            technologies.
      --Approximately 15 to 20 percent would go to developing sensors and
            monitoring subsea hydrate sites to determine what role hydrates
            may be playing in the release of methane that could contribute
            to global climate change.
      --Approximately 15 to 20 percent would be used for seismic and well
            logging to evaluate subsea hydrate zone structure and strength.
            This will be important information to assess safety and sea
            floor stability issues.
        Question. Who will perform the work?
        Answer. Funding recipients have not yet been determined but will
    almost certainly include industrial partners, other government
    organizations (such as the Naval Research Lab, U.S. Geological Survey,
    the Ocean Drilling Program, National Science Foundation, and Minerals
    Management Service), National Laboratories, academia and oceanographic
    institutions including university consortia, the Federal Energy
    Technology Center, and the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Test Center. This is
    consistent with the draft Methane Hydrates Act of 1999, that has been
    reported out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which
    encourages ``partnerships among government, industry and institutions
    of higher learning.''
        Question. Why is this work important?
        Answer. As much as 200,000 trillion cubic feet of methane may exist
    in hydrate systems in the U.S. permafrost regions and surrounding
    waters. This is over a hundred times greater than the estimated
    conventional U.S. gas resource. The volume that may be economically
    producible is unknown. However, these enormous resources, if proven,
    have significant implications for U.S. energy security and global
    environmental issues, particularly global climate change. In addition,
    because the bulk of these methane hydrates are located on federal
    lands, gas production would provide significant resources through
    royalties and leases.
        The United States will consume increasing volumes of natural gas
    well into the 21st century, and methane hydrates can contribute to a
    reliable and low-cost domestic supply. Gas demand is expected to grow
    substantially throughout the first half of the 21st century because of
    an expanded transition to a role as a transportation fuel or a
    competitive source of transportation liquid fuel (gas-to-liquids
    conversion) and hydrogen for fuel cells.
        The technology to locate and safely produce methane from hydrates
    does not currently exist, and industry is unable to conduct the
    necessary research and development. In the current low oil and gas
    price environment, there is almost no industry research for methane
    production from hydrates. DOE's fossil energy research and development
    program, including methane hydrates research and development, is
    developing advanced concepts that are well beyond the timetables and
    performance goals of private sector research and development.
                               coal mine methane
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $500,000 to
    continue the coal mine methane project. How does this program fit into
    the Natural Gas Research and Development program?
        Answer. The Natural Gas Research and Development program seeks to
    develop and demonstrate for commercial readiness, technology by which
    economical gas supplies can be produced and made available for
    productive domestic utilization. The Coal Mine Methane program
    addresses technology needed to harness and utilize methane that is
    naturally released in the course of underground mining of coal.
        Question. What is its objective?
        Answer. The Coal Mine Methane program objective is to ensure that
    coal producers have a documented knowledge base of how methane released
    in the course of underground coal mining can be economically captured
    and utilized in productive ways. Accordingly, the program has
    requested, through a competitive process, proposals to design and
    demonstrate advanced means by which mine released methane can be
    captured and readied for commercial use and/or directly used.
        Question. How much is required in the out years to complete this
    program?
        Answer. Outyear budget estimates for the 50-percent cost shared
    program to completion are estimated at $1 million each year from 2001
    to 2003. This will allow the completion of no more than two projects.
                           advanced turbines programs
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $41.8 million in
    fiscal year 2000 for the Advanced Turbines program, which is $2.7
    million less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. How
    does this lower level of funding affect the program's schedule?
        Answer. The lower funding level in fiscal year 2000 is due to the
    ATS Utility program nearing completion. No slippage in the current
    schedule, due to funding level, is expected. However, due to the
    acquisition of Westinghouse by Siemens, there may be some delays in the
    Siemens-Westinghouse program.
                                   fuel cells
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $37.6 million for
    Fossil Energy's fuel cell program which is a decrease of $6.6 million
    (15 percent) below the fiscal year 1999 level. What impact will this
    lower level of funding have on the program?
        Answer. No significant impacts are expected to result from the
    reduction because the decreases are largely offset by increases in fuel
    cells in other Fossil Energy program areas; for example, $4.95 million
    in the High Efficiency Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program
    is for the development of advanced fuel cell systems for Vision 21
    gasification/combustion applications, in conjunction with gas-based
    fuel cell systems development. In addition, no funding was requested in
    fiscal year 2000 to continue the multi-layer ceramic technology
    initiative for fuel cells because awards for that effort are scheduled
    to occur in the July-August 1999 time frame although the work will
    continue through most of fiscal year 2000.
                        fossil energy research--offsets
        Question. What is the rationale for proposing to use $11 million of
    prior year balances to offset the fiscal year 2000 budget request for
    Fossil Energy Research and Development?
        Answer. The effort to provide funding for high priority projects in
    the Fossil Energy program, it was thought that prior year balances
    would become available to cover future budget activities.
        Question. What was the $11 million originally budgeted for and what
    will not be accomplished as a result of using these funds to offset the
    fiscal year 2000 budget request?
        Answer. These carryover funds resulted from two types of actions.
    First, through the contract closeout process, approximately $4 million
    has been recovered from contracts that are no longer active. Second, as
    a result of delays in the procurement process, various amounts from
    Coal, Oil and Gas programs were not obligated by the end of fiscal year
    1998. However, these funds will be obligated during fiscal year 1999.
    We believe that additional procurement delays will occur in fiscal year
    1999, and additional contracts will be closed out to make available
    sufficient funding at the end of fiscal year 1999 to cover this offset.
        Question. Before taking into account the use of prior year
    balances, the Department of Energy is providing a $9 million (2
    percent) decrease from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for Fossil
    Energy Research and Development in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year
    2000 budget request for Energy Conservation Research and Development is
    a $121 million (23 percent) increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted
    level. Was there consideration given to using prior year balances to
    offset the increase being proposed in the Energy Conversation budget?
    If so, how was the decision reached? If not, why not?
        Answer. Yes, consideration was given to using prior year balances
    in the Energy Conservation budget request. In fact, the Energy
    Conservation account is offset by balances from the Biomass Energy
    account.
                             clean coal technology
        Question. What is the Department's rationale for proposing a net
    $246 million deferral in fiscal year 2000 for the Clean Coal Technology
    program?
        Answer. Only two Clean Coal Technology projects have remaining
    funding requirements. These projects are the Clean Energy Demonstration
    Project--an IGCC project planned for Illinois and the Clean Power From
    Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a combined steel making
    and power generation project planned for Utah. DOE recently approved
    project restructuring and design phase extensions for both of these
    projects. These extensions were necessary to complete teaming
    arrangements, perform design activities, and to obtain environmental
    permits. Both projects already have adequate funding to complete these
    tasks. Since funds for the construction phase will not be needed until
    fiscal year 2001, DOE has proposed to defer these funds until they are
    needed to meet project commitments.
        Question. What is the impact of the fiscal year 2000 deferral on
    the out years?
        Answer. DOE's fiscal year 2000 request has proposed a specific
    schedule for the return of the deferred funds that will enable DOE to
    meet funding commitments for the two CCT projects with future funding
    requirements. DOE has proposed that the deferred funds be made
    available starting with $189 million in fiscal year 2001, $40 million
    in fiscal year 2002, and $27 million in fiscal year 2003. Provided the
    deferred funds are made available to DOE following this schedule, there
    will be no adverse impacts to the CCT program.
        Question. What happens if the net $246 million deferral is accepted
    and the outyear repayment of this deferral is not provided?
        Answer. If the funds proposed for deferral in fiscal year 2000 are
    later rescinded, DOE would not be able to fulfill the existing funding
    commitments as defined in the Cooperative Agreements for two projects:
    the Clean Energy Demonstration Project and the Clean Power From
    Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project. These projects would
    not proceed if federal funds were not available. Since these
    Cooperative Agreements require at least 50 percent industry funding,
    private-sector investments in these projects would also be lost and
    there could be resulting litigation.
        Question. What is the current status of the Clean Coal Technology
    projects and what are some of the recent milestones in the program?
        Answer. The CCT program currently has 40 active or successfully
    completed projects. Twenty projects have successfully completed all
    requirements and three additional projects have completed operation and
    are preparing final reports. Of the remaining 17 projects, 9 are in the
    operation phase, 1 is in construction, and 7 are in the design phase.
        Below are listed several success stories of the DOE Coal Research
    and Development and Clean Coal Technology (CCT) programs. The CCT
    successes--mostly demonstrations of pre-commercial, new technologies--
    could not have occurred without earlier DOE research and development.
    Research and development successes that culminated in CCT
    demonstrations include the following:
      --Low NOX burners: Far less expensive than preceding
            technology for removing NOX (oxides of nitrogen,
            precursors of smog) emissions, about one-half of U.S. coal-
            fired capacity today has these burners. Sales to date are about
            $1.5 billion.
      --Atmospheric Fluidized Bed power plants: DOE/industry investments in
            this clean technology have resulted to date in at least $9
            billion in domestic and foreign sales ($6.2 billion domestic,
            $2.8 billion foreign).
      --Advanced Scrubbers: Three advanced scrubbers have been demonstrated
            by DOE, one of which earned Power magazine's 1993 Power Plant
            of the Year award.
      --Tomorrow's Power Plants (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or
            IGCC, and Pressurized Fluidized Bed, or PFBC): These pre-
            commercial, virtually pollution-free plants have the potential
            of far higher efficiencies (thus, 20 to 40 percent lower
            CO2 levels).
      --The Rosebud SynCoal and Encoal
            processes are two different ways to upgrade low-rank coals to
            cleaner, more efficient fuels. Both processes are being
            marketed worldwide.
        Some of the recent project specific milestones include the
    following:
      --Delivery of the 18-cylinder engine for the coal diesel project
            (January 1999). The coal diesel project will demonstrate the
            performance and durability of a coal-fueled diesel engine
            during 6,000 hours of operation.
      --Completion of the first year of operation for the Healy combustors
            project (January 1999). The advanced slagging combustors is
            demonstrating reliable and low-emission operation on a blend of
            run-of-mine and waste coal.
      --Completion of the Pneumatic Fuel Project for the Rosebud project
            (January 1999). The Pneumatic Fuel Project was needed to
            improve the handling of the SynCoal product, allowing
            the participant to enter into a long-term supply agreement with
            a utility customer.
      --Approval of proposed restructuring/resiting of the Clean Energy
            project (December 1998). The restructuring/resiting approval
            significantly improved the likelihood for a successful
            demonstration of the British Gas/Lurgi gasification technology
            and the operation of a fuel cell on coal gas.
      --Completion of the third year of operation for the Wabash River
            project (November 1998). During the third year of operation,
            the syngas facility had an availability over 72 percent and a
            capacity factor of approximately 68 percent.
      --Approval of new technology vendor for the CPICOR project (October
            1998). The new technology vendor will enable the direct
            production of iron without the use of coke along with the co-
            production of electricity, providing an economic and
            environmental advantage over the traditional coke and blast
            furnace technology.
      --Completion of long-term testing of micronized coal reburning for a
            cyclone boiler (September 1998). The micronized coal reburning
            technology offers an economical approach for reducing
            NOX emissions with minimal boiler modifications.
      --Completion of the operating phase for the NYSEG flue gas cleanup
            project (June 1998). The project demonstrated an advanced wet
            scrubber with high sulfur capture efficiency in combination
            with low NOX burners that resulted in a system with
            minimal power requirements, zero waste water discharge, and the
            production of usable byproducts instead of wastes.
      --Completion of final reports for four environmental control projects
            during calendar year 1998:
        Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent
    Injection.--Project demonstrated NOX reductions of at least
    60 percent and SO2 reductions of at least 50 percent on two
    different boiler configurations.
        Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired
    Boiler.--Project demonstrated 50 percent NOX reduction using
    low NOX burners, advanced overfire air, and the use of an
    advanced instrumentation and control system.
        Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOX Burners on a
    Wall-Fired Boiler.--Project demonstrated 70 percent reduction in
    NOX emissions using Foster Wheeler's low-NOX
    burners and gas reburning.
        LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project.--
    Project demonstrated a utility retrofit of a high sulfur-removal
    technology that produced a dry solid waste product.
        Question. Given the rescissions that have been made to the Clean
    Coal Technology program and the proposed deferral for fiscal year 2000,
    is there sufficient funding for its successful completion?
        Answer. Of the 40 projects in the Clean Coal Technology program, 38
    projects are fully funded. The two projects with remaining funding
    commitments will not require additional funding until fiscal year 2001.
    Provided the deferred funds are made available in the out years as
    proposed, DOE will have sufficient funding for the successful
    completion of the CCT Program. Prior rescissions were achieved through
    savings resulting from project restructuring and project withdrawals.
        Question. How many projects are yet to be completed and what is the
    current plan to complete them?
        Answer. Of the 40 projects in the Clean Coal Technology (CCT)
    program, 20 projects have successfully completed all requirements and 3
    additional projects have completed operation and are preparing final
    reports. Of the remaining 17 projects, 9 are in the operation phase, 1
    is in construction, and 7 are in the design phase.
        Of the nine projects currently in the operation phase, only the
    Custom Coals project is anticipated to have difficulty completing
    remaining activities. Recently, the Custom Coals' processing facility
    was sold at auction and the new owner of the facility has approached
    DOE about completing the CCT project.
        The Coal Diesel project is the only project in the construction
    phase. The diesel engine was delivered to the project site in January
    1999. In April 1999, the participant indicated that a significant
    funding shortfall is anticipated for the project and that project
    activities have stopped until additional funds are identified. DOE
    previously has already committed to provide nearly the full 25 percent
    cost growth maximum allowed in the Clean Coal Program. Additional
    funding from DOE over the 25 percent maximum is not allowed by law. If
    the participant cannot secure additional project funding, the coal-
    fueled diesel technology may not be demonstrated.
        A total of seven projects are in the design and permitting phase.
    Three of these projects have been delayed due to protracted contract
    negotiations between the project participants and the technology
    suppliers. DOE believes the parties are close to reaching agreements
    and the projects will be moving forward as planned. Two additional
    projects were recently granted extensions to allow for restructuring
    activities. While these projects are early in the design and permitting
    phase, DOE believes these projects are on track to begin construction
    activities within 2 years. The two remaining projects are the
    ThermoChem project in Baltimore, Maryland, and the NOXSO project. The
    ThermoChem project was recently granted approval to proceed with a
    reduced-scope project and the project is ready to initiate construction
    activities. The participant for the NOXSO project is in Chapter 11
    bankruptcy. A suitable host site and participant financing is required
    for this project to continue.
        Question. Do you plan to terminate any ongoing Clean Coal
    Technology projects?
        Answer. No projected terminations are planned. The Department is
    committed to the successful completion of all ongoing Clean Coal
    projects.
        Questions: What are your plans if significant cost overruns occur
    in any of the projects?
        Answer. Cost overruns in the Clean Coal Technology program are
    capped by legislation. If cost overruns occur they would be evaluated
    for merit and the existing cost overrun reserve of $13 million could be
    utilized. In addition, if any of the existing projects terminate, the
    excess funds related to those projects would be available as an overrun
    reserve.
        Question. Is the Clean Coal Technology program producing results?
        Answer. The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program has and continues
    to produce results that are changing the face of the electric power
    generation industry and other major coal use industries. Of the 40
    active projects, 23 have completed operation, 20 of which have
    submitted final reports. These reports are made available to the public
    and a bibliography is produced and updated to aid interested parties.
    The reports represent a comprehensive compilation of timely information
    invaluable to the utility sector and other coal users faced with
    increasingly stringent air pollution standards.
        Below are listed several success stories of the DOE Coal Research
    and Development and Clean Coal Technology (CCT) programs. The CCT
    successes--mostly demonstrations of pre-commercial, new technologies--
    could not have occurred without earlier DOE research and development.
    Research and development successes that culminated in CCT
    demonstrations include the following:
      --Low NOX burners: Far less expensive than preceding
            technology for removing NOX (oxides of nitrogen,
            precursors of smog) emissions, about one-half of U.S. coal-
            fired capacity today has these burners. Sales to date are about
            $1.5 billion.
      --Atmospheric Fluidized Bed power plants: DOE/industry investments in
            this clean technology have resulted to date in at least $9
            billion in domestic and foreign sales ($6.2 billion domestic,
            $2.8 billion foreign).
      --Advanced Scrubbers: Three advanced scrubbers have been demonstrated
            by DOE, one of which earned Power magazine's 1993 Power Plant
            of the Year award.
      --Tomorrow's Power Plants (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or
            IGCC, and Pressurized Fluidized Bed, or PFBC): These pre-
            commercial, virtually pollution-free plants have the potential
            of far higher efficiencies (thus, 20 to 40 percent lower
            CO2 levels).
      --The Rosebud SynCoal and Encoal
            processes are two different ways to upgrade low-rank coals to
            cleaner, more efficient fuels. Both processes are being
            marketed worldwide.
        Of the 23 completed projects, 9 demonstration projects continued in
    commercial operation. Almost all the environmental control device
    demonstrations have completed operations. The resultant body of
    information represents the largest demonstration database ever compiled
    on advanced environmental controls. The technologies incorporated in
    the database cover the full range of potential utility applications.
    The fact that it contains demonstration-based data enables potential
    users to assess cost and performance of the various options for their
    site-specific situations. Movement of the technologies into the
    commercial market underscores the value of the data.
        The Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., Nucla
    Station repowering project provided the database and operating
    experience requisite to making atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed a
    commercial technology option at utility scale. Through the Ohio Power
    Company's repowering of the Tidd Plant (70 megawatts), the potential of
    pressurized fluidized-bed combustion as a highly efficient, very low
    pollutant emission technology was established and the foundation laid
    for commercialization (through extensive documentation of the
    operational, environmental, and cost performance). Three Integrated
    Gasification Combined-Cycle projects, representing a diversity of
    gasifier types and cleanup systems, are producing information on a new
    approach to coal use that could revolutionize the power generation
    industry. The projects are attracting interest from utilities
    worldwide.
        ENCOAL recently completed documenting their successful
    demonstration of a unique technology that produces both clean, high
    energy density solid and liquid fuels from low-rank coal. Demonstration
    data enabled the technology supplier to conduct five feasibility
    studies in three countries that have high potential for resulting in
    commercial projects. Data coming out of the ongoing demonstration of
    the Liquid Phase Methanol process (LPMEOH) suggests
    that coproduction of electricity and methanol may provide a clean,
    cost-effective energy option. A project with Bethlehem Steel
    Corporation is providing proof that coal can be substituted for coke
    for a significant portion of the carbon requirement in steelmaking,
    enabling a major reduction in pollutant emissions.
        DOE is making every attempt to disseminate the results of the
    demonstrations to customers and stakeholders. The annual Clean Coal
    Technology Demonstration program: Program Update briefly summarizes
    progress and accomplishments on all ongoing projects and, for projects
    that have completed operations, provides a more extensive summary of
    results. A Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: Project Fact
    Sheets document updates project information mid-year. The annual Clean
    Coal Technology Conference and associated proceedings provide a yearly
    snapshot of how each of the active projects is progressing along with
    an in-depth presentation of technical findings. The CCT Compendium
    provides an electronic database, incorporating the CCT program
    publications that can be accessed on the Internet (http://www.lanl.gov/
    projects/cctc).
        Question. What are some of the recent major accomplishments
    associated with the Clean Coal Technology program?
        Answer. The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program enabled the utility
    industry to respond cost effectively to the first wave of
    NOX control requirements imposed and has positioned the
    utility industry to respond to NOX control requirements in
    the 21st century. Under Title IV, Phase I of the Clean Air Act
    Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), NOX emission limits were
    established for wall- and tangentially-fired boilers, effective January
    1, 1996. The CCT Program not only positioned industry to respond to the
    regulations with low-NOX burners, but provided valuable
    input to the regulatory process by furnishing realtime data. Similarly,
    the CCT Program has been instrumental in preparing the utility industry
    for Title IV, Phase II CAAA NOX control requirements,
    effective January 1, 2000, addressing the balance of the boiler types
    and imposing more stringent requirements on wall- and tangentially-
    fired boilers. Also, the technologies demonstrated under the CCT
    program have positioned the utility industry to respond to even tougher
    NOX emission standards, effective in May 2003, recently
    imposed on 22 states and the District of Columbia in an EPA ``SIP
    Call.'' Technologies demonstrated include combustion modification
    control technologies, such as low-NOX burners and coal- and
    gas-reburning, and post-combustion NOX control methods, such
    as selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic reduction.
    To date, over one-third of coal-fired generating capacity in the United
    States has installed low-NOX burners, with sales exceeding
    $1.5 billion.
        The CCT Program has also provided a portfolio of SO2
    control technologies to enable utilities to respond cost effectively to
    year 2000 CAAA emission levels. Technologies are available for the full
    range of units from small space-constrained boilers to large,
    relatively new boilers. The technologies also span a range of costs
    commensurate with performance, but significantly less than conventional
    technologies existent before the CCT Program. For example, the two
    advanced wet flue gas desulfurization technologies demonstrated under
    the CCT Program redefined the state-of-the-art for sorbent-based
    scrubbers by: halving operating costs and significantly reducing
    capital costs; producing by-products instead of waste; and mitigating
    plant efficiency loses by using high-capture-efficiency devices.
        The CCT Program was instrumental in commercializing atmospheric
    circulating fluidized-bed combustion (ACFB) technology through the Tri-
    State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., project in Nucla,
    Colorado. An industry consortium joined with DOE to fully evaluate the
    potential of the technology for utility application. The results and
    the attendant comprehensive database served to establish ACFB as a
    commercial offering, which has realized an estimated 9.5 gigawatts of
    capacity installation worldwide. Today, every major boiler manufacturer
    offers an ACFB system in its product line. Power magazine has called
    fluidized-bed coal combustion ``the success story of the last decade in
    the power generation business. This success [is] perhaps the most
    significant advance in coal-fired boiler technology in more than half a
    century.''
        Pressurized Fluidized-bed Combustion (PFBC) technology is also
    beginning to make market penetration as a result of work performed at
    The Ohio Power Company's Tidd Plant. The CCT Program demonstration and
    associated development work have resulted in several commercial sales,
    including a 360-megawatts unit in Japan and a 220-megawatt unit in
    Germany. The technology represents a new generation of advanced power
    systems, with efficiencies far higher than conventional coal-fired
    systems and pollutant emissions far below new source performance
    standards, without need of add-on emission controls.
        Three Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle (IGCC) demonstration
    projects, representing a diversity of gasifier types and cleanup
    systems, are pioneering the introduction of a new approach to power
    generation. Two of the technologies are currently operating in a
    commercial dispatch mode, gaining invaluable performance data. The
    units are attracting worldwide interest because of their potential to
    significantly improve efficiency, reduce pollutant emissions, and serve
    as building blocks for even more advanced systems.
        ENCOAL recently completed successful demonstration of a coal
    processing technology capable of producing a high energy density solid
    fuel and a liquid product from low-rank coal. The solid fuel is low
    enough in sulfur to be considered a compliance fuel; that is, capable
    of meeting CAAA standards for 2000. Also, the solid product has
    demonstrated combustion characteristics that enable reduced
    NOX emissions. The liquid product has most potential as a
    chemical feedstock, but can be used as a low-sulfur boiler fuel.
    Efforts are progressing toward establishing a commercial plant in the
    United States and detailed feasibility studies have been carried out in
    Indonesia and Russia.
        The Liquid Phase Methanol process (LPMEOH) being
    demonstrated at the Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee is
    showing promise as a cost effective means of coproducing electricity
    and methanol. Continued stable production of methanol at or beyond
    design rates from high-sulfur bituminous coal suggests that IGCC with
    LPMEOH offers a very clean, highly efficient means of using high-sulfur
    coal in chemical and electricity production.
        Demonstration of granular-coal injection at Bethlehem Steel's Burns
    Harbor blast furnace operations is proving that coal can replace up to
    40 percent of the coke requirement in ironmaking. This has significant
    environmental and cost ramifications. Coke production in the United
    States has been severely cut because of the magnitude and extent of
    resultant pollutant emissions. Steel producers have had to rely on
    foreign coke, which is often of poor quality. Granular-coal injection
    allows substitution for much of the coke. Emissions from the injected
    coal are controlled in the blast furnace.
        Question. What lessons have been learned from the Clean Coal
    Technology program that could be applied in the future?
        Answer. The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program has proven to be an
    effective means by which the government can work cooperatively with the
    private sector in developing and introducing new technologies into the
    commercial marketplace. Several guiding principles evolved during the
    implementation of the program which could be applied to future programs
    meeting the following conditions: the objective is to place a product
    into the commercial marketplace; the technology has evolved to the
    stage where the private sector is willing to fund at least 50 percent
    of the project costs; and the projects are large enough to truly
    reflect its intended commercial configuration under commercial
    operating conditions. The principle lessons learned during the CCT
    program are as follows:
      --A strong and stable up-front commitment by the government is needed
            for the life of the projects.
      --The technical agenda is determined by industry not the government
            with industry given the flexibility to use their expertise and
            innovation to define the technology and to propose a project in
            response to the government's defined objective. Multiple
            solicitations spread over a number of years enabled the CCT
            program to address a broad range of national needs with a
            portfolio of evolving technologies.
      --At least 50 percent cost-sharing throughout all project phases
            demonstrated industry's commitment to fulfilling the project
            objective and to confirm the market potential continued over a
            period of time.
      --Allowing for cost growth to be shared at the ratio of the original
            agreement recognized the risk involved in first-of-a-kind
            demonstration while confirming the need for industry's
            commitment to share in the total cost of the project.
      --Industry retains the real and intellectual property rights in order
            to avoid relinquishing their competitive position in
            technologies developed to the point of demonstration.
      --Roles of the government and industry are clearly defined with
            industry responsible for technical management of the project
            and government supporting the project as long as project
            milestones and terms and conditions of the negotiated
            cooperative agreement are met.
      --Industry must be committed to commercialize the technology and make
            the technology available to potential users on reasonable
            commercial terms.
                                 climate change
        Question. A recent study by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
    assessed the most cost effective ways for the world to control the
    buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Their preferred scenario
    controlled greenhouse gas at lowest cost, thereby providing for
    continued economic growth. In this least cost scenario, world
    utilization of fossil energy doubles while about half of the carbon
    dioxide produced is sequestered. Given the large role that
    sequestration could play in cost-effectively reducing emissions, does
    the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request adequately fund the
    carbon sequestration program?
        Answer. Much of the Department's budget for climate change related
    work is in the area of increased energy efficiency and in the
    development of renewable and other no-carbon forms of energy. Fossil
    Energy has two related programs in this area: advanced, clean efficient
    power generation technologies and carbon sequestration research.
    Sequestration is a relatively new carbon mitigation strategy and the
    current budget request reflects its developmental status. If practical
    low-cost sequestration options can be developed, millions of tons of
    carbon could be reduced, and the United States and the world might
    avoid drastic shifts in fuel use or severe economic penalties.
    Sequestration is the only carbon mitigation option that is completely
    compatible with the existing energy infrastructure.
        The requested budget is an attempt to balance competing budget
    priorities, and reflects a relatively near-term focus for climate
    change mitigation research. A longer term focus with emphasis on
    capping atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, as suggested by
    the study you referenced, would likely favor greater resources for
    carbon sequestration options.
        Question. Is it technologically possible to develop cleaner, more
    efficient systems to produce electricity from fossil fuels?
        Answer. Yes, we agree with the conclusions of the Pacific Northwest
    Lab Study that economically viable, clean, very high efficiency, fossil
    fueled electric generation systems, which can sequester carbon in a
    cost-effective manner are possible. The Department's Vision 21 program,
    coupled with carbon sequestration, is a government-industry-academia
    collaboration aimed at bringing these generation systems to commercial
    readiness.
        Question. Under almost any scenario, fossil fuels will continue to
    dominate the power generation sector both domestically and
    internationally for a very long time. If ultra-high efficiency power
    generation technologies coupled with carbon sequestration were used for
    all new plants built in the United States over the next 50 years, what
    would the impact be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
        Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has conducted a screening
    analysis of the impact on carbon emissions if ultra-high efficiency
    natural gas and coal-fired power plants began to deploy in 2005 and
    2010, respectively. The generation efficiency of new gas-fired plants
    reached 70 percent by 2015 and the efficiency of new coal-fired plants
    coming on line reached 60 percent by 2020. Sequestration technology was
    assumed to be available for all new plants coming on line after 2020.
    Under these assumptions, carbon emissions from U.S. electricity
    generation in 2050 would be reduced from 850 million metric tonnes of
    carbon per year to 75 million metric tonnes per year--a 91-percent
    reduction. In this scenario, carbon emissions from power generation
    have not fallen to zero because some power plants built before 2020 are
    still assumed to be in the inventory. If there were an incentive to
    retire those remaining plants which do not have carbon sequestration,
    carbon emissions from power generation could be zero in 2050. In 1995,
    carbon emissions from this sector were 495 million metric tonnes per
    year.
        Question. Assume that the Energy Conservation program in the
    Department of Energy is successful and that the United States achieves
    energy efficiency halfway between current U.S. and European levels.
    This is a reasonable goal in view of the vastly higher energy prices in
    Europe and the broader geographical expanses in the United States. If
    successful, how much could this program reduce the projected growth in
    U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years?
        Answer. If successful, the programs of the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy are
    expected to achieve a significant reduction in the projected growth of
    greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years. In the Department's
    analysis conducted for the Government Performance and Results Act
    (GPRA), its energy efficiency programs are projected to yield annual
    carbon savings of over 200 million metric tons of carbon equivalent by
    the year 2010. The GRPA analysis does not extend beyond 2010; however,
    the Department is presently conducting a study which will look at the
    benefits of energy efficiency and renewable technologies to 2020. A
    focus of this study will be an analysis of the energy, environmental,
    and economic impacts of different public policies and programs, and the
    identification of policy implementation pathways that can form the
    basis for national solutions to those challenges. We expect that this
    report will be published by September 1999.
        There are few studies which examine the impact of energy efficiency
    technologies beyond the year 2020. One such study is entitled Energy
    Innovations: A Prosperous Path to a Clean Environment, (Alliance to
    Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural
    Resources Defense Council, Tellus Institute, and Union of Concerned
    Scientists, 1997). By using energy efficiency and renewable
    technologies, the study claims there is the potential for carbon
    emissions to drop to 45 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The
    authors state that such a reduction could be attained by a set of
    program and policies that could guide our economy toward lower cost,
    less polluting, more secure, and more sustainable ways of producing and
    using energy. The authors maintain that technological progress would be
    the cornerstone of such an achievement.
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $2.1 billion
    in its Energy Resources business line. Fossil Energy Research and
    Development is funded at $163 million. These advanced systems, when
    fully commercialized, could reduce energy usage by 10 quads per year
    and combined with sequestration could reduce carbon emissions by over
    750 million tons per year. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for
    Energy Conservation is $837 million, and this technology could reduce
    carbon emissions by 400 million tons and reduce energy usage by 20
    quads. Overall, these technologies appear to have a similar impact. In
    light of this, is the allocation of resources in the Department's
    fiscal year 2000 budget request appropriate?
        Answer. First, we should note that the request for the Fossil
    Energy Research and Development account is $364 million, not $163
    million. That also does not include funding on- going Clean Coal
    projects. The comparable number for Energy Conservation--the research
    and development component without weatherization and state formula
    grants is $646 million, so the actual difference in funding is
    substantially less than it appears.
        The allocation of funding within the Department's fiscal year 2000
    budget request is based on analysis of how each program can contribute
    to the nation's multiple energy goals as articulated in the National
    Energy Strategy. Both fossil energy and energy conservation programs
    are important to meeting these goals. However, increased investments in
    energy efficiency technologies are the most cost-effective means of
    meeting the broad set of national energy goals. The increase proposed
    for energy conservation reflects this fact.
        Question. Please describe what Climate Change Technology Initiative
    activities are included in the fiscal year 2000 budget for Fossil
    Energy.
        Answer. Fossil Energy has two related programs contained in the
    Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI): advanced, clean, efficient
    power generation technologies, and carbon sequestration research. The
    FE budget for the CCTI in fiscal year 1999 was $24 million; in fiscal
    year 2000 the budget request is $37 million. The main components of the
    budget request are as follows:
      --$18 million in fiscal year 1999 ($28 million in fiscal year 2000)
            to make advanced natural gas and coal powerplants' more
            efficient and compatible with carbon sequestration (IGCC, PFB,
            Fuel Cells, Turbines).
      --$6 million in fiscal year 1999 ($9 million in fiscal year 2000) for
            carbon sequestration research and development. This includes
            exploratory research on innovative approaches to sequestering
            carbon, research to investigate a spectrum of techniques for
            sequestration of carbon in geological formations, and initial
            efforts to conduct field study and small scale experiments to
            gather ``real world'' data on the fate of sequestered carbon.
        Question. What other activities are funded in the Fossil Energy
    budget which will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
        Answer. The Fossil Energy technologies most focused on climate
    change mitigation are those identified under the Climate Change
    Technology Initiative, and include Vision-21 technologies and
    sequestration technologies. However, the remaining power systems
    budget, including coal and natural gas fueled systems, will also lead
    to lower cost and more efficient electricity generating technologies,
    which translates to lower carbon dioxide emissions. These technologies
    include indirect fired cycles, integrated gasification combined cycle,
    pressurized fluidized bed, fuel cells, and advanced gas turbines. Other
    activities funded in the Fossil Energy budget which will contribute to
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions include programs to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions by improving the nation's ability to supply, store,
    transport, and distribute natural gas in an economically efficient and
    environmentally beneficial manner, because natural gas is the least
    carbon-intensive fossil fuel.
        Question. Why does the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Climate Change Technology Initiative reflect a 53-percent increase in
    Fossil Energy Research and Development while the overall Fossil Energy
    Research and Development budget for fiscal year 2000 is $20 million
    below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level?
        Answer. Most of the funding shown for climate change research and
    development is part of an integrated coal research and development
    program focused on developing technologies for using coal in the
    cleanest and most efficient manner possible, while at the same time
    reducing the cost of energy. This research and development effort
    responds to key public needs and would be pursued with or without
    climate change considerations. The increased amount for climate change
    reflects a change in the nature of the work associated with our Vision
    21 clean power program: inclusion of some fuel cell work in the climate
    change category and an increase in long range work on carbon
    sequestration. The overall reduction in the Fossil Energy's budget
    reflects two items: a $12 million decrease in the Low Emission Boiler
    System (LEBS) program, which is being completed; and the use of $11
    million in obligated balances from fiscal year 1998 to offset new
    appropriations requirements. The remainder of the program is consistent
    with fiscal year 1999 levels.
        Question. What role does the Department of Energy have in the
    development of climate change policy?
        Answer. The Department has been an active participant in the
    interagency process that has developed and supported the
    Administration's climate change policy. DOE was an early and strong
    supporter of flexible, market-based mechanisms, which include
    international emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism,
    have become central to the U.S. climate policy and were incorporated in
    the Kyoto Protocol. DOE was also a successful advocate for the
    inclusion of all major greenhouse gases and carbon sinks in any
    international agreement.
        DOE funding and technical expertise led to the development of the
    Second Generation Model, which in one of the economic modeling tools
    used by the Council of Economic Advisers to assess the potential
    impacts of international climate agreements on the U.S. and world
    economy. DOE's five-lab study of the potential of technology to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions helped lead the Administration to boost its
    budget request for climate-related energy research and development, and
    to propose selected incentives for investment in new energy
    technologies. DOE continues to be an active participant in the U.S.
    team participating in international climate change negotiations and in
    the interagency process that continues to develop and refine U.S.
    policy in this area.
        Question. What role does clean coal and other fossil fuel
    technology research and development have in developing a sound climate
    change policy?
        Answer. Current programs in three areas in the Office of Fossil
    play a role in developing a sound climate change policy. These are
    increased efficiency of electric power generation, carbon
    sequestration, and more efficient use and production of natural gas.
    Development of higher efficiency power generation technologies will
    reduce the amount of carbon produced per kilowatthour generated. In
    addition, both the Integrated Gasification Combined cycle (IGCC)
    technology and the fuel cell technology, which have been under
    development for several years, can produce a concentrated
    CO2 waste stream which requires minimal processing prior to
    reuse or disposal.
        The purpose of the Fossil Energy sequestration program is to
    develop and demonstrate technically, economically, and ecologically
    sound methods to capture, reuse and dispose of CO2. Fossil
    Energy also has programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
    improving the nation's ability to supply, store, transport, distribute
    and utilize natural gas in an economically efficient and
    environmentally beneficial manner. This will be accomplished by taking
    advantage of opportunities to develop technology for increasing supply
    from both conventional and unconventional sources.
                        federal energy technology center
        Question. In December 1996, as part of the Department of Energy's
    Strategic Realignment Initiative, the Morgantown, West Virginia, and
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, research centers were consolidated into one
    Federal Energy Technology Center with two coequal locations. Another
    aspect of the Strategic Realignment Initiative was an agreement that
    efforts would be made to make better use of the Federal Energy
    Technology Center's expertise in the execution of various DOE programs,
    not only those funded by the Office of Fossil Energy. What efforts have
    been taken to ensure that the Federal Energy Technology Center
    portfolio of programs is widely mixed?
        Answer. The Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) has undertaken
    efforts to broaden the portfolio of programs since the consolidation
    including new program initiatives in environmental technology, energy
    management services, and water quality. These efforts have helped FETC
    to apply its extensive in house technical and managerial expertise to
    other DOE activities.
        Question. What are the total dollars and staffing associated with
    each source of funding provided to the Federal Energy Technology Center
    for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
        Answer. The total dollars and staffing associated with FETC's
    primary sources of funding are as follows:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Fiscal years--
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1998 Budget           1999 Budget          2000 Request
                   Source of Funding                      authority             authority      ---------------------
                                                   --------------------------------------------
                                                     Dollars      FTE      Dollars      FTE      Dollars      FTE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fossil R&D (FE) \1\...........................        488        481        607        504        600        482
    Environmental Rest. and Waste Management (EM)          94         66         64         65         54         51
     \2\..........................................
    Former BOM \3\................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         14
    Energy Efficiency (EE)........................         29  .........         22  .........         20  .........
    Other, DOE....................................         11  .........          8  .........          8  .........
    Other, non-DOE................................         34  .........         16  .........         16  .........
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................................        656        547        717        569        698        547
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FTEs reflect authorized levels for Fossil R&D, including Clean Coal Technology.
    \2\ Prior to fiscal year 2000, EM provided funds for 29 FTEs that were transferred to the FETC from the former
      Bureau of Mines (BOM). In fiscal year 2000, EM will only fund 15 of these FTEs, with no funding in fiscal year
      2001.
    \3\ Former BOM FTEs requiring funding in fiscal year 2000.

        Question. Is the funding in the budget request adequate to fully
    support the efforts being un dertaken at the FETC in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The Fossil Energy funding request for salaries in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget is adequate to fully support the employees on
    board at the FETC. A proposed reduction of $1.5 million in the
    Environmental Management funding will place about 14 employees at risk.
    The FETC intends on pursuing reimbursable work to compensate for this
    loss of funding.
        Question. What activities are proposed in the fiscal year 2000
    budget request for the Federal Energy Technology Center to undertake in
    support of the DOE offices of Environmental Ma nagement, Energy
    Efficiency, and Defense programs?
        Answer. The FETC's efforts on behalf of the Environmental
    Management program for fiscal year 2000 include the following:
      --Support the remediation and waste management of Environmental
            Management sites through the development, demonstration and
            deployment of environmental technologies by private sector
            industries and universities.
      --Develop, demonstrate and deploy technologies to reduce life-cycle
            costs/mortgages and reduce risk to the public/workers/
            environment for the deactivation, decontamination and
            decommission of DOE's contaminated surplus facilities.
      --Operate Environmental Management's Center for Acquisition and
            Business Excellence (CABE), to provide all aspects of business,
            cost engineering, and project management assistance to
            Environmental Management headquarters and DOE wide
            Environmental Management program.
      --Environmental Management program direction funds to support FTEs,
            and related travel and supplies for FETC performed
            Environmental Management work.
        For Energy Efficiency programs:
      --Technical and project management support for the Energy Star
            program, Rebuild America program, and the cooperative research
            and development program to advance energy efficient building
            equipment and envelope technologies.
      --Technical and project management support for the Mining Industry of
            the Future.
      --Project Management for Energy Efficiency/Fossil Energy jointly
            funded programs to convert natural gas to clean fuels for the
            transportation sector.
      --Project Management for Energy Efficiency/Fossil Energy joint funded
            industry/University Consortium for the Advanced Turbine System
            program.
        For Defense programs:
      --FETC will provide Defense program technical, environmental,
            management, quality assurance, and engineering support to the
            Office of Tritium Production, in the Commercial Light Water
            Reactor (CLWR.) project, the Accelerator Production of Tritium
            Project (APT) targets, and the Tritium Extraction Facility at
            DOE's Savannah River site. This work includes the support of
            the EIS for the CLWR Project Alternative.
                         appliance efficiency standards
        Question. What statute governs how appliance efficiency standards
    are set by the Department of Energy?
        Answer. The Department of Energy's appliance standards program is
    conducted pursuant to Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.
        Question. Does this statute require the Department of Energy to
    determine appliance efficiencies based on measurements of site energy
    usage?
        Answer. The statute requires that in prescribing new efficiency
    standards, the Department determine the maximum efficiency level that
    is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining
    whether the standard is economically justified, the Department is to
    consider the costs/benefits to the consumer. The measures of energy
    efficiency and energy use are, by statute, based on the energy consumed
    at the point of use and these are the measures of energy use that are
    used in the consumer analyses, for example, life-cycle-cost.
        Question. Does the Department of Energy appliance efficiency
    standards program adhere to this statute?
        Answer. Yes, when considering a new efficiency standard, the
    Department not only determines the consumer life-cycle-costs savings,
    but also carefully evaluates the impact of a new standard on
    manufacturers, the potential energy savings to the nation, impacts on
    gas and electric utilities and the environmental benefits of the
    proposed standard, as prescribed by the statute.
        Question. Is the Department of Energy developing any plans to
    change how it measures appliance energy efficiencies for the purpose of
    setting energy standards?
        Answer. The Department is always looking for ways to improve the
    analysis used as a basis for establishing new efficiency standards. In
    1996, the Department undertook an effort to revamp the way it does
    standards rulemaking and established new procedures in the Appliance
    Standards Process Rule issued July 15, 1996. At that time the
    Department established an Appliance Standards Advisory Committee to
    advise it on efficiency standards rulemaking issues. One of the
    recommendations made to the Department by the Advisory Committee was to
    use the full range of consumer marginal energy prices rather than a
    national average price in examining the impact of standards on consumer
    life-cycle-costs. Similarly, the Department intends, with stakeholder
    input, to use a range of energy price forecasts and energy conversion
    factors and associated emission reductions based on electric power
    generation displaced by standards rather than averages, for the
    standards analysis.
        Question. From an appliance buyers perspective, isn't the actual
    energy cost to the user at the site of use the most important variable
    for setting appliance standards?
        Answer. DOE believes site energy prices provide the most useful
    measure to consumers since these can be directly related to information
    readily available, that is, utility bills.
        Question. Is the Administration's interest in setting ``source''
    efficiency standards rather than ``site'' efficiency standards for
    appliance energy usage a back door approach to trying to implement the
    Kyoto protocol or a government plan to encourage fuel switching?
        Answer. The Department is not implementing the Kyoto Protocol
    through either a backdoor or front door approach. The Department is not
    changing the basis on which efficiency standards are set from ``site''
    to ``source.'' The statute requires that the Department determine the
    consumer life-cycle-costs, which are based on site energy prices, and
    national energy savings, which is measured as source energy savings,
    when prescribing a new energy efficiency standard. The Department has
    always done this and will continue to do this in the future.
    Furthermore, the Department considers the likely impact new standards
    will have on fuel switching to try to find ways to minimize fuel
    switching.
        In response to direction from the Senate and House Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittees in their fiscal year 1999 appropriations
    bills, the Department is analyzing the site versus source issue.
    However, no changes in the basis for setting efficiency standards are
    anticipated at this time and none will be considered without extensive
    consultation with Congress and the relevant stakeholders.
        Question. I understand that the Department of Energy has contracted
    with the Rand Corporation to do a study of site measurements versus
    source measurements with regards to appliance efficiency standards. Why
    has the Department of Energy undertaken to do this study?
        Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
    has contracted with the Rand Corporation to provide EERE with an
    independent assessment of the implications of measuring energy using
    site or source measurements. The main outcome will be a quantitative
    assessment of the impacts that may be associated with the different
    measurement approaches as a means of providing objective information to
    DOE for addressing future policy issues. The study will not focus on a
    particular standard and goes beyond the appliance standards to include
    issues in measuring energy use in homes.
        Question. Why did the Department of Energy chose the Rand
    Corporation for this study?
        Answer. The Department contracted with Rand because Rand has a long
    history of providing objective information to policy makers addressing
    major national policy problems. While high-quality, objective research
    on national security became the institutions first hallmark, today Rand
    researchers continue to operate objectively on a broad front, assisting
    public policy makers at all levels and private sector leaders in many
    industries. Rand brings a unique perspective to informing this debate,
    one that is independent and grounded on rigorous analysis and
    objectivity. Rand's process is inclusive and open, which provides for
    inputs from all interested parties.
        Question. How much will the study cost? What funds are being used
    for the study (please be specific)?
        Answer. The study will cost about $110,000 and is using fiscal year
    1998 funding provided for Assistant Secretary cross-cutting activities.
        Question. When will the study be complete?
        Answer. We expect the study to be completed by the end of June
    1999.
        Question. How does the Department of Energy plan to use the results
    of this study?
        Answer. The Department will use the results of this study to both
    inform it's own position on this complex issue and to begin a new round
    of stakeholder discussions on the appropriate use of site and source
    energy measurement in various programs and policies. Hopefully, the
    study results will be able to replace some opinions with measured and
    verified facts.
        Question. Can the Department of Energy make any use of the results
    of the study without federal authorizing legislation?
        Answer. The information can inform issues related to Energy Star
    homes and the joint DOT/FTC Energy Guide labeling system, as well as
    coordination with states that have varying degrees of codes and ratings
    for homes. It can help shape future analysis for appliance standards
    and help inform the dialogue with stakeholders.
                         clean coal technology program
        Question. Doesn't this ``deferral,'' and the companion threat of no
    future funding, place the program in jeopardy?
        Answer. The proposed deferral reflects a rescheduling of outyear
    funding for the Clean Coal Technology program. It is the Department's
    intent to use these funds as they become available if Congress approves
    the deferral language as proposed in the budget. If for some reason
    such funds did not become available, it would indeed jeopardize the two
    projects affected by the proposed deferral.
        Question. Did the Department of Energy include this deferral in
    funding for the Clean Coal Technology program in its budget submission?
        Answer. The Department requested a deferral of $59 million in its
    fiscal year 2000 OMB budget request. The deferral amount was later
    increased in recognition of the schedule delays encountered in the
    Clean Energy and CPICOR projects.
        Question. What assurances can you offer that the Clean Coal
    Technology funds proposed for deferral in the President's fiscal year
    2000 budget will ever be made available to complete the current
    obligations of the Clean Coal Technology program?
        Answer. The Department has stated before this committee and others
    that we are committed to completing the clean coal projects and meeting
    our obligations under the project agreements. We have proposed specific
    language in our fiscal year 2000 budget request which provides for the
    deferred funds to be returned in subsequent fiscal years to ensure
    timely completion of project funding.
                 fossil energy research and development program
        Question. Mr. Secretary, why does the President's budget include a
    decrease for fossil energy research?
        Answer. The Fossil Energy fiscal year 2000 budget request was about
    $20 million below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Part of this
    reduction is due to the fact that the Low Emission Boiler Systems
    program which was funded at $15 million in fiscal year 1999 has been
    fully funded, thus only $3 million was needed for this project in
    fiscal year 2000. The remainder of the reduction is attributed to
    reductions in Congressionally added funds for Fuel Cells ($2 million),
    and reductions in the Advanced Turbines Program ($2 million), and the
    Gas-to-Liquids Program ($2.0 million), both of which are adequately
    funded.
        Question. Did you request an increase in this program for the
    fossil energy program above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level in your
    budget submission to OMB? Why wasn't the increase supported?
        Answer. Yes, the Department submitted a $439,000,000 request to the
    Office of Management and Budget for the Fossil Energy Research and
    Development account. The increase was not supported because of the
    Administration's commitment to stay within the budget caps and because
    other priority projects were ranked higher in the allocation of limited
    dollars within the President's budget.
        Question. Isn't it true that fossil energy and research on fossil
    energy are critical to our future? Don't you agree that the fossil
    energy research program managed by your Department provides major
    benefits to energy users through lower costs from more efficient
    systems and effective fuels, to the environment through the development
    of cleaner fuels and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
    and to the nation by enhancing national security and providing economic
    advantages to U.S. companies?
        Answer. I agree with you. Fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--supply
    85 percent of U.S. energy, and that figure could approach 88 percent by
    2015. Our fossil energy research and development program can benefit
    energy consumers by reducing the costs of additional pollution controls
    that will likely go into effect over next 10 years under the Clean Air
    Act Amendments, perhaps lowering costs to ratepayers by $5 to $7
    billion per year. In addition, beyond just cost savings for pollution
    controls, our research and development program to develop higher
    efficiency power systems, fueled by both goal and natural gas, could
    reduce the cost of electricity by 10 to 20 percent compared to
    currently-available conventional power generating technology.
        Over the longer term, in the post-2015 time frame, our research and
    development could lead to a pollution-free power plant fueled by coal
    and other fuels. We may also be able to develop ways to sequester
    greenhouse gases, preventing their buildup in the atmosphere, at costs
    several orders of magnitude below the likely costs of the limited
    carbon control approaches available today. We are also working on new
    technologies that can diversify our domestic supplies of natural gas
    and as a result, keep natural gas prices affordable even as demand for
    natural gas escalates in the future.
        Cost reduction is also a major objective of our oil technology
    program, although the price impact on consumers is often overshadowed
    by global oil price trends that are outside of our control.
    Nonetheless, research and development that reduces costs in our
    domestic oil fields has the beneficial effect of making available U.S.
    resources that might otherwise have been uneconomical to produce. This
    research and development can also reduce the oil- and gas-related
    environmental regulatory costs incurred by state and federal agencies.
    Overall, in fact, our oil and gas technology research and development
    program could potentially save as much as $16 billion in environmental
    regulatory and compliance costs by 2010, allowing these dollars to be
    directed toward additional domestic oil and gas exploration and
    production.
        There are also environmental benefits beyond just regulatory cost
    savings. More accurate oil and gas exploration technologies can ensure
    a greater success rate in finding producible resources, reducing dry
    holes and associated environmental disturbances. Better drilling
    technologies--for example, horizontal and slimhole drilling systems--
    can significantly reduce the surface ``footprint'' of oil and gas
    operations. New oil and gas waste treatment technologies can
    significantly reduce the amount of wastewater and other production
    wastes that must be handled and disposed of properly.
                           climate change activities
        Question. Mr. Secretary, what plans does the Department of Energy
    have to facilitate the sale of U.S. clean coal technologies abroad and
    encourage developing nations to install and use these clean coal
    technologies?
        Answer. The Department considers international deployment (that is,
    sales) of improved U.S. technologies important both for the global
    environmental benefits that accrue, and for the benefits which flow to
    the U.S. economy. U.S. clean coal technologies are inherently lower in
    emissions of traditional pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and
    nitrogen oxides. In addition, they are also more efficient than
    conventional coal technologies, which makes them lower in carbon
    dioxide emissions and reduces pressure on global climate change.
        The Office of Fossil Energy has a number of efforts to assist in
    the deployment of clean coal technologies in developing countries,
    particularly in China and India which are projected to increase coal
    use substantially over the next decades. For example, in China we are
    working with the Chinese government, and U.S. and Chinese universities,
    and have created the U.S.-China Center for Energy and Environmental
    Technology. This center will facilitate information exchanges between
    the U.S. and China and promote U.S. technologies for use in China's
    energy sector. Types of activities covered include identification of
    market opportunities in China and U.S. technology capabilities;
    training and education related to the environment, technology, and
    financing of projects; and assistance by U.S. experts on energy and
    environment. In India, the Office of Fossil Energy has conducted
    workshops on coal beneficiation and other clean coal technologies. In
    addition, the Department has supported trade missions to specific
    countries, and continues to participate in international conferences
    and other fora where the advantages offered by advanced technologies
    are addressed.
        The Department is also considering various incentives which would
    aid in the accelerated deployment of advanced technologies abroad. We
    have offered technical advice to the World Bank, which is considering
    implementing such incentives on a limited scale, and we are examining a
    package of incentives proposed by U.S. coal stakeholders. These
    incentives include investment tax credits, performance guarantees, and
    production credits for a limited number of advanced, high efficiency
    coal-based technologies.
        Question. Do you agree that no realistic or effective solutions
    regarding climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
    can ignore the domestic and international importance of coal as a power
    source and of clean coal technologies for reducing greenhouse gas
    emissions?
        Answer. Yes, we agree. Fossil fuels provide more than 85 percent of
    the energy consumed in the United States and 75 percent of the world's
    energy and are key to both developed and developing countries economic
    growth projections. Combustion of these fuels, to varying degrees,
    creates greenhouse gases. Current programs in two areas in the Office
    of Fossil Energy reconcile the prevalence of coal use and greenhouse
    gas reduction. These are: increased efficiency of electric power
    generation, and carbon sequestration. Development of higher efficiency
    power generation technologies will reduce the amount of carbon produced
    per kilowatt hour generated. In addition, the Integrated Gasification
    Combined cycle (IGCC) technology and the fuel cell technology, which
    have been under development for several years, can produce a
    concentrated CO2 waste stream which requires minimal
    processing prior to reuse or disposal. The purpose of the Fossil Energy
    sequestration program is to develop and demonstrate technically,
    economically, and ecologically sound methods to capture, reuse and
    dispose of CO2.
                        federal energy technology center
        Question. Mr. Secretary, you have indicated over the past few
    months that you would welcome a visit to the Morgantown site of the
    Center. I want to encourage you to fit such a visit into your schedule.
    I think you would find it very rewarding and stimulating. Do you think
    such a visit might occur in the near future?
        Answer. I had the pleasure of visiting the Federal Energy
    Technology Center's (FETC) Pittsburgh site on October 6, 1998. During
    my visit, I held a meeting with all of the employees from both
    Pittsburgh and Morgantown--some of the Morgantown employees were there
    in person and others participated through TeleVideo. I was asked that
    very question during my visit--whether or not I would visit the
    Morgantown site--and my answer was ``yes.'' A visit to the site is
    still on my agenda for the near future.
        Question. Will you work with your immediate staff to include the
    Center more completely in climate change issues?
        Answer. The FETC already plays a crucial role in supporting
    development of low or no carbon emission technologies. However, until
    recently, the contribution such technologies could make to a future
    with restrictions on carbon emissions has not been explicitly factored
    into detailed studies of mitigation strategies.
        We intend to more fully involve the Office of Fossil Energy, and
    FETC in particular, in comprehensive, integrated analyses of mitigation
    strategies. This will allow us to make use of the large existing base
    of knowledge within FETC in advanced gas turbines, fuel cells, carbon
    sequestration, and advanced coal-fired power system concepts, such as
    Vision 21.
        Comprehensive, integrated analyses of mitigation strategies would
    compare a range of energy-supply and end-use technologies, exploring
    the benefits and costs on a common basis. This common basis would
    incorporate a variety of criteria into the evaluation, including
    economic criteria, environmental benefits, and the pursuit of other
    acknowledged national goals.
        Question. Would you please provide for the record your thoughts as
    to how these activities can receive greater emphasis in developing
    future budgets for the defense environmental restoration and waste
    management program?
        Answer. In a carbon-managed future, all new technologies should be
    developed recognizing of their full impact on carbon emissions. These
    technologies (for Environmental Management) need to be evaluated for
    their possible impact. In addition, it is probable that innovative low
    carbon emission technologies could benefit by transferring knowledge,
    techniques, and sensors from this arena to development of energy
    technology.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gorton. Thank you very much for coming. The
    subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,
    April 14, when we will receive testimony from Kevin Gover,
    Asst. Sec. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        [Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., Thursday, March 18, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m, Wednesday,
    April 14.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999

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

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         Office of the Special Trustee

    STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. THOMPSON, ACTING SPECIAL TRUSTEE
                FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

    STATEMENT OF KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

                                 Budget request

                   opening statement of senator slade gorton

        Senator Gorton. Good morning. We will bring to order the
    Interior Subcommittee with the third of its hearings for the
    fiscal year 2000 budget request for agencies funded through the
    subcommittee.
        This morning we will hear testimony on the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee for American
    Indians.
        Mr. Gover, I want to welcome you to your second hearing
    before this subcommittee as the Assistant Secretary for Indian
    Affairs and acknowledge publicly your efforts over the course
    of the last year and a half. I am very pleased, as I have told
    you privately as well, about the opportunities we have had to
    work together.
        Your candor and intellect, and forcefulness for that
    matter, provide me with valuable insights in connection with my
    work as subcommittee chairman. You are a welcome change for the
    way I thought that the bureau was run for a number of years.
        Mr. Thompson, we want to welcome you to your first hearing
    as the Acting Special Trustee for American Indians. I know both
    of you have been compelled to testify before several committees
    in both the House and Senate during the course of the last
    couple of months. I appreciate your taking time to be with me
    here today.
        I would ask Mr. Thompson to present the budget of the
    Office of Special Trustee first. Then after we have had an
    opportunity to direct questions to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Gover
    on the Office of the Special Trustee and the Trust Management
    Improvement Project, we can move on to the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs.
        I want to remind my colleagues that the special trustee
    does not report to Assistant Secretary Gover. Authority flows
    directly from the Secretary of the Interior to the special
    trustee. The BIA, however, is involved in our government's
    efforts to clean up trust management. As Mr. Gover can attest
    personally, Judge Lamberth is not drawing much in the way of
    distinction between the two agencies and their responsibilities
    for addressing the problems of trust management.
        For the moment, I would like to put the President's request
    for these two agencies in context, given where this
    subcommittee may be headed in fiscal year 2000. The President's
    budget is replete with initiatives that require passage of
    separate authorizing or taxing legislation, and very few of
    those initiatives are likely to be enacted by this Congress.
        In addition, the President's budget overall is $25 billion
    above the fiscal year 2000 statutory cap on discretionary
    spending enacted in 1997. The Interior Subcommittee's pro rata
    share of this $25 billion is about $625 million, which, if
    eliminated, will cut out much of the $1 billion increase
    requested by the President for interior bill programs.
        We are likely to get more than a pro rata share of this
    reduction, as it is the intention of Congress to secure
    increases in education and defense spending within the caps.
    This means that for most interior bill programs, we will be
    fortunate even to maintain fiscal year 1999 funding levels. In
    total, the budget request for the BIA is $1.9 billion, a $156
    million increase over the fiscal year 1999 level, roughly 9
    percent.
        Major increases are requested for law enforcement and
    education, two areas to which I have committed my support.
        The Office of the Special Trustee is requesting to more
    than double its budget, a total of $100 million compared to
    $39.5 million provided for this year. This figure does not
    include $21.8 million requested by the office in supplemental
    funds. We have not completed work on the supplemental but are
    acutely aware of the troubles at the Office of the Special
    Trustee.
        As members of this committee and subcommittee know, I have
    made every effort to increase funding for tribal programs paid
    for by this subcommittee since I became chairman.
        The chart provides indicates where we have gone since 1996.
    The future health and welfare of the next generation of Indian
    children depends on adequate education, health care and on safe
    communities. The chart outlines the funding provided by the
    committee for the BIA and IHS since 1996.
        For example, I took the initiative to increase the
    appropriation of the Indian Health Service by $35 million over
    the President's request last year. I would like to continue to
    focus the subcommittee's limited resources within targeted
    areas during the upcoming appropriations process. As I
    mentioned, however, the task will be made doubly difficult this
    year. And I am looking forward to hearing from both of you.
        Mr. Gover and Mr. Thompson, I hope you will work with us to
    identify the most important priorities for your agencies. We
    will be compelled to make tough choices, but I believe we will
    make better decisions if we have the benefit of your expertise
    and candor.
        It may very well be that the two of us who are here now,
    Senator Burns and I, may be the only ones here. We have
    conflicting hearings. I know that Senator Campbell is in a
    closed oversight hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources
    Committee on Chinese espionage at the Department of Energy. In
    fact, both of the members who are here are members of that
    committee as well. I suspect that Senator Burns may want to
    spend some time there.
        So please do not take the relatively sparse attendance at
    this hearing as an indication that there is not great interest
    in the work that both of you do. That interest is very much
    there.
        With that, Senator Burns, do you have anything that you
    would like to----

                   opening statement of senator conrad burns

        Senator Burns. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
    statement. But I think you laid it out pretty well when we all
    start to set our priorities in Indian country. Of course, we
    are all very, very much interested in the problems of the
    trustee and what will finally become of that. I think we have
    the responsibility now to reform that in how it is kept.
        I was very distressed when I found out that there are
    accounts all over the country, rather than one account or one
    central place that controls or is a watchdog of that money. I
    think the chairman is very, very much aware of our problems
    right now and we need to fix them as soon as possible.
        Another one of our big problems is safety and law
    enforcement. I hear that everywhere I go in Indian country. All
    the citizens of Montana that talk to me, that seems to be one
    of their primary concerns.
        Then I drop from there to education. Without a doubt, we
    have one of the best educators there is in this country. I
    would put Joe McDonald up on the Flathead Reservation, the 2-
    year college up there, against anybody. I have never seen a man
    so dedicated to education. He runs a great, great school.
        When you get great leaders like that, I think it tells us
    that there is something going on that is very, very good. I
    have some problems with the infrastructure of education,
    because we have to build a couple schools. We have children
    that are absolutely sitting on top of one another, and that is
    not a learning environment. We must correct that situation. I
    have committed all the resources that I know how to address
    those areas, because education, law enforcement, and safety are
    primary, if we are to see people progress in this great
    country.
        So I think the chairman has laid out his priorities very,
    very well and the responsibility that this Government has, and
    also the responsibility that tribal governments have in
    fulfilling these areas of great concern.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I look forward to
    listening to the witnesses. I am going to duck out and go up to
    the other hearing. I suppose you were going to do about the
    same thing. It seems like we are not short of work here after
    coming back after a 2-week break.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                    summary statement of thomas m. thompson

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Thompson, we would like to hear from
    you now.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Burns.
        I appreciate the opportunity to present the Office of
    Special Trustee's fiscal year 2000 budget to the committee. As
    Secretary Babbitt has stated in previous testimony to the
    House, the reform of Indian trust management is his highest
    priority. He is saying that every day at the Interior
    Department. He has appeared before various committees with us
    and as our point man, as Senator Burns knows, to support this
    effort. Time and again he has expressed his commitment to clean
    up this problem on his watch.
        With this committee's assistance, I would like to talk a
    little bit about some of the things we have done in the last
    year to show you that we have been using the resources provided
    by the committee to make improvements and to start on this
    rather long journey we have to go on.
        As you know, the Department published its High Level
    Implementation Plan, its general road map to the reform of
    Indian trust management, in July of last year. It basically
    covers in general terms 13 areas that need to be worked on in
    some detail in order for the Department to meet its trust
    responsibilities as outlined in the Indian Trust Reform Act of
    1994.
        The sub-projects are scattered across five different line
    bureaus and offices of the Department of Interior who have
    major responsibilities for administration and management of
    Indian trusts. That includes the Office of Special Trustee in
    its oversight role and some line authority, certainly the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs with major responsibilities for land
    management and title control.
        In addition, we have the Minerals Management Service
    responsible for royalty collections, the Bureau of Land
    Management dealing with issues on lease inspection, rail
    inspection, and then the Office of Hearing and Appeals, who
    deals with probate issues for the Department.
        We have made substantial progress since last year. We
    successfully ran a pilot of the new trust fund accounting
    system, the replacement system for the basic trust accounting
    system that BIA had developed some 30 years ago. We piloted
    that project in Phoenix, Sacramento, and Juneau in August of
    last year.
        In January of this year, we move it onto the Albuquerque
    and Navajo areas. At the end of February, we converted all of
    the tribal accounts.
        Today we can tell you that about $2.7 billion of the $3
    billion in trust is on the new system. The new system is
    exciting to us because it is commercial, off-the-shelf
    technology, provided by SEI Investments of Oaks, Pennsylvania.
    This company provides about 40 percent of the technology for
    trust management across the country to the 7,000 banks that do
    this sort of business. They are a major provider, and they are
    right on the edge of technology.
        We have asked them to provide the system and to operate it
    for us. We provide the data; they provide the reports back to
    us. It is a major advance. It gives us a lot more power and
    authority.
        With contractor assistance before we did this conversion,
    we went to work on cleaning up the individual trust account
    file jackets, so that when we looked at a file on the system,
    we could back it up with the documentation. A key problem that
    has been identified time and again is the issue of records
    management, or the lack of records management, on this issue
    over time.
        With the work of another contractor, Data Comm Sciences, we
    have gone through nearly 311,000 file jackets. We have cleaned
    up about 250,000 of those file jackets at this point. Not
    unexpectedly, we found problems. Nearly half of those file
    jackets are missing essential documents that a normal trustee
    would find in a jacket in a bank or such an account.
        At this point, we expect to finish this work with the
    contractor, the pre-conversion work, in June of this year. The
    work is on time, ahead of schedule, and, believe it or not,
    under budget. This work as expected, is identifying other
    cleanup work that we will have to address as part of the post-
    systems conversion effort. And we have a similar effort working
    forward.
        About a year after we began our work, BIA started its work
    on its new system, the trust asset and accounting management
    system. That system contract was let to a major developer of
    trust system software, Artesia Company out of Dallas, Texas.
        They are now in the design process prior to beginning the
    pilot of that system in June of this year in the Billings area
    of BIA. Again, this is a commercial, off-the-shelf system that
    is being modified somewhat to meet BIA's requirements,
    principally in the area of land title and title information.
        BIA also awarded a cleanup contract to work in the Billings
    and Juneau areas. That work began in February of this year.
        In another arena, BIA commenced a pilot to work on the
    fractionization problem. With the help of the Congress, we
    received $5 million in fiscal year 1999 and are beginning the
    work to purchase the small interests caused by the
    fractionization of lands over the last 120 years out of the
    General Allotment Act of 1887.
        The BIA expects to purchase some 20,000 to 30,000 small
    pieces of land owned by interest owners in the Minneapolis
    area. The proposal is to start to consolidate those pieces of
    land and roll them back in to the tribe.
        Once the fund to pay for the land is reimbursed, we will
    turn those lands over to tribes, who will operate them in a
    much more efficient manner than we can do with upwards of 1,100
    owners on a single 80-acre tract.
        In addition, we have managed to make all of these systems
    Y2K compliant, with the help of the contractors, obviously. We
    have continued our other work on improving internal controls
    with daily reconciliations with Treasury on the cash balances,
    a central----
        Senator Gorton. Are you telling me that you are one of the
    government agencies that is not going to have any Y2K problems
    whatsoever?
        Mr. Thompson. I can tell you OST will not have any Y2K
    problems. We are ahead of the power curve on that. I believe
    Kevin will probably tell you pretty much the same thing, as far
    as the trust accounts are concerned.
        Senator Gorton. Right. Thank you.
        Mr. Thompson. A success story for a change.
        In addition, we have all been training the people on trust
    business. We have set up a central lock box for returned checks
    when they go out without an address that is current and
    accurate. We have contracted for annual audits. We have also
    contracted for centralized safekeeping of investment
    securities.
        We are also working to propose a methodology to address the
    historic multi-million dollar imbalance on account variances
    between the Department of Interior and the Treasury Department
    that has existed for decades.
        You will note that many of these initiatives are being
    handled by contractors, people who are well-versed in trust
    practices and trust business, people that we do not have to
    train on how to do this sort of job.
        The fiscal year 2000 request is $100 million, as you noted.
    It is a little over $90 million for OST, of which about $40
    million will go directly to BIA to support their trust
    improvements. There is an additional request for $10 million
    for continuation of the land consolidation pilot that I
    mentioned earlier. It is a $60 million increase. We understand
    the issues with the budget caps.
        This is the single largest increase for any office or
    bureau in the Department of Interior, reflecting the
    Secretary's and management's commitment to fixing Indian trust
    management on the Secretary's watch.
        We will spend $65 million for trust improvements, which is
    an increase of $48 million over this year. This reflects the
    fact that these systems are coming on line in both OST and BIA.
    We will acquire and upgrade trust management accounting
    systems, finish cleanup of the account data in the pre-
    conversion stage, and work on eliminating backlog and probate
    and other such functions.
        As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we have requested a
    supplemental. We have had some success in the House in getting
    those amounts recognized. The money is essential if BIA is to
    continue moving forward in its data cleanup effort. It is
    obviously essential and of interest to Mr. Gover and the
    Secretary and to me, because it is going to be needed to
    support our work with Judge Lambert or the Special Master who
    was appointed to oversee our efforts to produce documents in
    the Cobell v. Babbitt litigation.
        I have to also mention that we are obviously feeling an
    impact of this litigation. The logistics and the manpower
    required to support this effort and to work on this litigation
    is rather massive. The commitment is certainly there. It was an
    embarrassment for which we apologized. We do not plan to make
    the mistake twice.
        Of course, that requires the commitment of resources and
    the commitment of people who are already strained working on
    trust improvements and carrying out the daily business of the
    Department.

                               prepared statement

        We expect there will be some impact on some of these
    schedules. We do not see the overall schedule slipping, but we
    will have to do some internal adjusting to make this thing
    happen.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my remarks now and
    respond to any questions you or the committee would have.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Thomas M. Thompson
                                  introduction
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
    appreciate the opportunity to present the President's fiscal year 2000
    budget request for the Office of the Special Trustee for American
    Indians (OST). The total 2000 request for OST is $100 million, $90.025
    million for OST and $10 million for Indian Land Consolidation. This is
    a $60.5 million increase over the 1999 enacted level of $39.5 million,
    and the single largest percentage increase for any bureau or office in
    the Department.
        In addition, OST also has requested fiscal year 1999 supplemental
    funding totaling $21.8 million; $6.8 million for the trust fund
    improvements based on the High Level Implementation Plan; and $15
    million for additional expenses related to the class action lawsuit,
    Elouise Pepion Cobell et. al. v. Bruce Babbitt et al.
        The Secretary has stated in his testimony previously before this
    Committee that one of the highest priorities of the Administration is
    to successfully resolve the Indian trust fund management problems that
    have accumulated over the last 70 years. The Secretary has also
    committed to clean up this problem on his watch.
                    indian trust management reform progress
        I am happy to report that with this Committee's assistance, much
    has been accomplished since OST appeared before the Committee last
    year. Most significantly, the Department developed and published its
    High Level Implementation Plan, a general roadmap to the 13 Sub
    Projects which comprise the Department's Trust Management Improvement
    Project. The Plan contains information on and describes each of the Sub
    Projects, responsible Bureaus and Offices, supporting tasks, critical
    milestones, work plans, resource estimates and accountable officials.
    Substantial progress has been made, including:
      --Following a successful Pilot in Phoenix, Sacramento, and Juneau,
            OST is implementing a new commercial off-the-shelf Trust Funds
            Accounting System to administer all 300,000 Tribal and
            Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts and investments.
            Albuquerque and Navajo areas were converted in January 1999,
            and all tribal accounts were converted in February 1999. The
            balance of accounts will be converted by December 1999. This is
            an off-the-shelf, and contractor operated system provided by
            SEI Investments Company of Oaks, Pennsylvania.
      --With contract assistance, OST has gathered, organized, and updated
            systems data for more than 237,000 of the estimated 300,000 IIM
            File Jackets in conjunction with the new Trust Funds Accounting
            System. The entire pre-conversion data cleanup will be
            completed by June 1999.
      --The Bureau of Indian Affair's (BIA) has contracted with Artesia
            Data Systems of Dallas, Texas, for a new Trust Asset and
            Accounting Management System (TAAMS) to replace BIA's aging,
            antiquated, and non standardized automated systems for land
            title operations and land and lease management functions. The
            system will be piloted in the Billings area beginning in June
            1999, and the balance of areas are expected to be converted by
            December 2000.
      --BIA awarded a data cleanup contract for Billings and Juneau areas
            in February 1999. BIA is utilizing the same contractor
            currently finishing the pre conversion data cleanup for OST in
            this initial effort. BIA's pre conversion data cleanup process
            is expected to be completed by December 2000.
      --The Department's automated trust systems and accompanying
            infrastructure have been made Year 2000 Compliant.
      --OST has contracted for a central lockbox for returned checks to
            ensure control and timely redeposit to trust accounts.
      --OST has contracted for training of 70 employees within OTFM in
            commercial trust management operations and practices through
            the Cannon Financial Institute, one of the industry's leading
            training firms for commercial trust banks.
        Many of these initiatives are either being accomplished by
    contracting, or assisted by contractors, not just hiring additional
    employees. Indeed, an estimated 74 percent of fiscal year 1999
    obligations for trust management improvements will be through
    contracts.
        It should be noted that as a result of the Cobell v Babbitt
    litigation and other requirements, the Department is currently
    evaluating its ability to maintain the above schedules.
                  fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations
        As you are aware, the Department has two fiscal year 1999
    supplemental requests totaling $21.8 million. The 2000 budget included
    a $6.8 million request for supplemental funding in 1999 to implement
    the Trust Management Improvement Project. We appreciate the
    Subcommittees inclusion of this request in its supplemental bill. The
    pace of obligations for the trust management improvement project (TMIP)
    has increased, as the most significant Sub Projects have passed from
    the planning phase to the implementation phase. In particular, about
    $34 million in contracts for BIA and OST data cleanup, TFAS, TAAMS,
    records management, training, and other TMIP Sub Projects will be
    renewed or let in 1999. Given these pending obligations, the Department
    estimates that currently available funding for implementation of the
    trust management improvement project will be fully committed by the
    third quarter of 1999. Reprogramming flexibility provided by Congress
    in fiscal year 1999 to meet unfunded TMIP needs has allowed the
    Department to reduce its TMIP shortfall from a high of $16.2 million at
    the beginning of 1999 to a current shortfall of $7.3 million.
    Supplemental funding of $6.8 million will cover most of this shortfall,
    and the balance of the shortfall can be met through other means.
        An additional supplemental request in the amount of $15 million was
    transmitted to support Department-wide estimated fiscal year 1999 costs
    of the IIM litigation.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, Federal District Court Judge Lamberth
    found Secretary Babbitt, Secretary of the Treasury Rubin, and Assistant
    Secretary Gover in contempt for failing to comply in a full and timely
    manner with certain discovery orders. These matters and the claims of
    approximately 300,000 IIM account holders remain before Judge Lamberth.
    The basis for his decision is a matter of public record. The Department
    has apologized to the court for the government's failures in this
    litigation and intends to do all that we can to be fully responsive to
    the Court's orders. The government recommended the appointment of a
    Special Master, as a way of addressing many of the discovery issues
    that have proven to be difficult. The Special Master will oversee the
    discovery process and administer document production, compliance with
    court orders, and related matters.
        As a result of the ruling, there will be significant additional
    costs to BIA, OST, MMS, BLM and the Solicitor's Office in searching for
    and producing documents of predecessor accounts and other documents
    previously thought to be beyond the scope of the original request. A
    portion of these costs can be funded from resources previously
    requested, and appropriated by Congress, for document production
    related to performing a statistical sample. The $15 million
    supplemental will cover the balance of the Department's costs, as well
    as other costs stemming from the litigation, primarily, the cost of
    document production for the anticipated statistical sample.
        In regards to the supplemental request, Mr. Chairman, these funds
    are needed to cover our current best estimate of anticipated costs. I
    can tell this Committee that numerous staff members from OST, BIA, the
    Solicitors Office, Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land
    Management and the Department have spent thousands of hours, often late
    into the night and on weekends working on this case. In many cases,
    these are the same staff responsible for daily ongoing responsibilities
    in meeting the milestones and achievements of the High Level
    Implementation Plan. While supplemental funding will greatly enhance
    the ability of the Department to meet litigation demands without
    comprising trust reform efforts, the litigation does have an indirect
    impact on reform efforts because many of the employees involved in
    fixing the system also have responsibilities for producing documents
    stemming from the IIM litigation. Additionally, because plaintiffs are
    seeking an as yet undefined, new system for trust fund management that
    may be different from either the system in place and/or the systems
    envisioned by the High Level Implementation Plan, this case places
    substantial demands on the Department in terms of trial preparation,
    responses to plaintiff discovery requests, depositions, and testimony.
    While the Department is, to the extent possible, utilizing contract
    assistance and deploying staff from other program areas to assist in
    meeting litigation demands and trust reform schedules, these demands do
    place significant workloads on the Department's employees.
        The House has included the total $21.8 million in its pending
    supplemental. While we greatly appreciate the Senate's provision of
    $6.8 million in its supplemental, we respectively request your support
    for the additional $15 million in Conference. Without funding, the
    Government's ability to adequately defend this case will be severely
    compromised, and the Government will face substantial risks of
    additional court sanctions for failure to meet court ordered
    activities.
                        fiscal year 2000 budget request
        The budget request for Program Operations, Support and Improvements
    is $88.4 million an increase of $50.5 million over the 1999 enacted
    level. Of this amount $65.3 million will be available for continued
    implementation of the trust management improvement project, an increase
    of $42.9 million over 1999, net of a $5.1 million transfer from BIA.
        The OST request also includes $5.2 million to support settlement
    and litigation activities, and $10 million for continued implementation
    of the Indian Land Consolidation Pilot, which will commence in 1999 on
    three reservations in Wisconsin. The pilot is aimed at consolidating
    highly fractionated interests in allotted Indian lands, to improve the
    economic productivity of and reduce the cost of administering these
    lands. The 2000 request will allow the pilot program to be expanded to
    one or more additional reservations. While funded under OST, BIA will
    continue to lead pilot implementation.
    Improvement initiatives
        The 2000 request provides a total of $65.3 million for trust
    management reform activities of OST, BIA, and the office of Hearing and
    Appeals, which will be necessary to continue systems contracts already
    in place, eliminate programmatic backlogs, and strengthen support
    functions. Specifically, the request provides:
      --$21.8 million to replace BIA's key trust management systems (lease
            management, accounts receivable, land records, and trust
            resources management) by the end of 2000 and related pre
            conversion data cleanup costs.
      --$12.6 million to eliminate appraisal and probate backlogs in BIA
            and OHA to ensure trust beneficiaries receive timely
            distributions of trust assets.
      --$16.4 million for OST's off the shelf trust fund accounting system
            that will be installed nationwide by the end of 1999, and
            related post conversion data cleanup.
      --$14.5 million for strengthening support functions: internal
            controls, records management, policies and procedures and
            training.
      --Approximately $50 million of the $65 million requested for trust
            management improvements or 75 percent of these funds will be
            obligated through contracts.
    Operations
        The OST's budget includes $17.9 million to be utilized to conduct
    day-to-day operations of financial trust activities at the Office of
    Trust Funds Management (OTFM) including the field staff and support
    services. Included in the request is an additional $.7 million for
    fixed costs such as pay raises, and space costs paid to the General
    Services Administration and other fixed costs.
    Settlement & litigation support
        An increase of $1.9 million is requested to fund the Office of
    Trust Litigation Support and Records ongoing activities in litigation,
    including Cobell vs. Babbitt document production requirements and
    funding needed to prepare and begin implementation of a Tribal
    settlement legislative proposal.
    Executive direction
        The budget provides $1.6 million for Executive Direction, which
    supports staffing of the immediate Office of the Special Trustee and
    includes $250,000 for support of the Intertribal Monitoring Association
    and $85,000 for the Advisory Board. These groups advise the OST on
    trust funds matters. The funding for the OST staff will be essential
    for the implementation of the trust improvement efforts.
        This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be
    pleased to answer questions of the Subcommittee.

                            fiscal year 2000 funding

        Senator Gorton. Well, Mr. Thompson, you have given us a
    wonderful report of very real success. But, of course, the
    better the report is, the more relevant the question becomes.
    Assuming that you get your supplemental, if your year 2000
    appropriation is no larger than this year's together with the
    supplemental, will you not be able to keep up the same degree
    of progress?
        Mr. Thompson. What it will do is retard our ability to roll
    out these systems further than we have them right now. BIA will
    not be able to take the trust asset and accounting management
    system beyond the pilot in Billings area. That will rule out
    for the rest of the BIA as scheduled for year 2000. The funding
    we have now supports only the initial stages of that system.
        We are in the process of rolling out the trust fund
    accounting system in the OST office. We will have to re-look
    and decide if we can move it out into all of the BIA offices
    with the amount of funding we have right now. I do not believe
    we can do that.

                             future budget requests

        Senator Gorton. Would there be major increases beyond the
    year 2000 or will you be able to get all of these initiatives
    accomplished with this appropriation?
        Mr. Thompson. We would expect that the request for
    appropriations in future years will come down. This is the peak
    year by the way the schedule was set up. It peaks because we
    have major systems development and major cleanup activities
    occurring at the end of 1999 and through 2000. That is not to
    say that the work will all be done, but this clearly is the
    peak year. We will bring the figure down from 2001 on out.
        Senator Gorton. Well, whatever our ability to do that, I
    can tell you that we will work with the House to come up with
    an appropriate supplemental for you.
        Mr. Thompson. We cannot ask for anything more.

                        consolidation of trust functions

        Senator Gorton. We do think you have started out on your
    proposed course of action very, very well. Is the process of
    consolidating and gathering trust functions into your office
    complete?
        Mr. Thompson. The effort to consolidate trust functions is
    centered on our internal business of operating the trust fund's
    management side. As you know, the Secretary in 1997 said that
    we were going to make these reforms under the current
    organizational structure. That is, we would not move to the
    structure recommended by the former Special Trustee, Paul
    Homan, who recommended we take these functions out of the
    Department of the Interior.
        The Secretary wants to try and work this out internally.
    That is why you see Kevin Gover and I sitting arm in arm here
    at the table. It is working well now. Time remains to see how
    it is going to work in the future.
        In our case, we are moving to consolidate some of our
    accounting business in the Albuquerque office of the trust
    fund's management. Included in that is moving to centralize the
    data entry. We are also moving to centralize our trust records
    at a single site in Albuquerque.

                         staff support for improvements

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Gover, maybe this part of the question
    is for you: Has the Secretary created all the new support
    offices he needs to address trust management reform?
        Mr. Gover. I believe that we have, Mr. Chairman. We have
    established a separate project team to attack the Cobell versus
    Babbitt document production. Within, of course, Tom's
    organization there are various project teams to work on their
    elements of the overall project.
        Within BIA, we have established a similar structure, where
    we have project directors on each of our three primary projects
    and then an overall director of our trust management
    activities.
        So I believe that structurally we are in the right position
    now. Maybe it really should have been done sooner, but we are
    ready now. Tom is right, that if we can get this money in
    fiscal year 2000, then by the end of fiscal year 2000 we will
    be so far along that I think we would be able to declare a
    success in overhauling the system.

                                   gao report

        Senator Gorton. Back to you, Mr. Thompson. In a report, a
    draft report, to Chairman Campbell, the GAO is critical of
    Interior's trust improvement plan, especially with respect to
    computer systems. What can you tell us, or what can either of
    you tell us, about these concerns and the way in which they
    have been responded to?
        Mr. Thompson. Sure. Mr. Chairman, the GAO has been working
    closely with us over the past year and a half as we move
    forward in this process. Their draft report, which the
    Department has responded to, had recommendations in two areas.
    One dealt with the manner in which the high level
    implementation plan was put together and rolled out, for which
    I was responsible.
        The second deals with the manner in which the BIA is
    planning and moving forward with its implementation of the
    trust asset and accounting management system. Our basic problem
    with the GAO report is that it is looking at a point in time
    that is probably 9 months ago and does not reflect what has
    happened----
        Senator Gorton. Would you have sent your own criticisms to
    Mr. Homan?
        Mr. Thompson. I am sorry, sir?
        Senator Gorton. I say is that--well, let us see. It is
    about 9 months ago, is it not, when you were Deputy Special
    Trustee, that you were critical of some trust management
    aspects of the plan?
        Mr. Thompson. Yes, and let me turn to that quickly. That
    was a note that I wrote to Mr. Homan the day before I presented
    the high-level plan for publication to the Department.
        Senator Gorton. I see.
        Mr. Thompson. In that I addressed what I considered to be
    risk to success in the way some of the plans were put together
    and the approach that some of those plans laid out. They
    reflected my professional opinion, my experience in the
    Department. Basically, the Secretary and the Department
    recognized those issues, pointed out that it was a very
    aggressive plan, and decided to move forward with the plan.
        There are lots of ways to do a plan, lots of ways to put a
    system out. That reflected my personal view.
        Senator Gorton. But you are saying that the GAO report was
    as of about that time.
        Mr. Thompson. That is correct. The GAO report, to go back
    to that, basically thought that the high-level implementation
    plan should have had more background and design documentation
    behind it. They were looking for some historical documents in
    our view that did not exist and that they thought should be
    developed before we move forward.
        With the Cobell litigation, with the time frame and
    commitment of the Secretary, we felt it was worth the minimal
    risk to move forward with a high-level plan and supplement that
    plan downstream with more detailed project plans, which we have
    done in many situations.
        The other issue that the GAO brought forward was the
    approach to developing the trust asset and accounting
    management system. They had very specific criticisms of that
    approach. In the sense of many people in the Department,
    including the Chief Information Officer, those views reflected
    a methodology for systems development that was basically 10-12
    years old.
        It was the sort of comments and the sort of concerns you
    would raise if you were developing a major mainframe computer
    system, where you develop all of the software from the ground
    up, from scratch, and you did not understand the functions that
    you were trying to take care of.
        In the case here, since we are buying these systems from
    commercial vendors who do this job every day, we felt
    comfortable that they had probably proven the systems and had
    dealt with the issues that the Department had not and had the
    foresight to see. It is a bit of a risk, but it was worth the
    risk in the view of the departmental management.

                                 iim litigation

        Senator Gorton. I do not know which one of you this
    question is primarily addressed to. But apparently Judge
    Lamberth has set a trial date for June 10. Is that earlier than
    you expected? And does that have any impact on your budget
    request?
        Mr. Thompson. It is certainly earlier than we had hoped. It
    does not impact our budget request. The production of documents
    does not have to be completed before that trial. So in that
    respect, it is not affected.
        Mr. Gover. The impact from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, is
    that the trial, this trial, is on the adequacy of the high-
    level implementation plan. We made commitments that we plan to
    move forward to correct in these 13 areas. We have done work in
    several of them successfully. Of course, driving those plans,
    supporting those plans, are the resources to do the job. They
    will watch very carefully our success in front of this
    committee.

                               land fractionation

        Senator Gorton. Give me a little bit more, if you will, Mr.
    Thompson, about the fractionation of Indian lands and trust
    management. You gave me a certain statistic with respect to
    Minnesota. Repeat that and tell me how widespread that is and
    what your long-range plan is in connection with it.
        Mr. Thompson. I may ask for some help from Kevin on this.
        Senator Gorton. That is fine.
        Mr. Thompson. Basically in 1887, Congress passed the
    General Allotment Act, which basically divided lands into
    allotments of 160, 80 and 40 acres. The intention was to give
    this land to Indian tribal members as an allotment, and then in
    25 years deed those lands to these tribal members, these
    individual Indians.
        However, the land never was deeded to these indiviual
    Indians and remains in trust. Therefore, without further
    guidance, we ended up with what is called fractionation. As the
    Indian population died intestate, the land became divided among
    the heirs. Basically, it gives each heir undivided interest in
    a parcel of land.
        I do not have the statistics at my fingertips about where
    we sit exactly. There are thousands and thousands of such
    interests.
        Senator Gorton. We were just handed this chart.
        Mr. Thompson. Yes. This gives you an idea of what happens
    over five generations. This is what happens to the ownership of
    the land over four or five generations, also.
        Mr. Gover. What we do know is that the average piece of
    Indian allotment property now has 40 owners. That is the
    average. Some have literally over 1,000. Those are, obviously,
    the oldest allotments and tend to be in the Great Lake states.
        Senator Gorton. What policy change is proposed to deal with
    that?

                           fractionation legislation

        Mr. Gover. Primarily the fractionation legislation that was
    actually introduced, I believe, in the House last year. We have
    asked again for the Indian Affairs Committee to consider this
    legislation. It would establish a revolving loan fund that
    would allow us to acquire from willing sellers the small
    interests. The interests, the loan, the money used to purchase
    the small interests, would be repaid out of revenues generated
    from the property itself. At the point it was----
        Senator Gorton. Well, now, would the BIA own those
    interests then?
        Mr. Gover. We would then turn the interest over to the
    tribe.
        Senator Gorton. OK.
        Mr. Gover. So the idea is to consolidate ownership in the
    tribe itself.
        Senator Gorton. So there would no longer be an allotments
    to individuals----
        Mr. Gover. Right.
        Senator Gorton [continuing]. Of those lands.
        Mr. Gover. Yes.
        Senator Gorton. The income that the tribe received from the
    lands would go to pay off the loans.
        Mr. Gover. Correct, and replenish----
        Senator Gorton. Then after that would be tribal interest.
        Mr. Gover. Right. That is right.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.

                               budget priorities

        Mr. Thompson, and for both of you, I appreciate your
    testimony in this regard. I think given the nature of the
    budget problems with which we are faced, I am going to need you
    to think and at least privately communicate with us what the
    situation would be with respect to programs, if you do not get
    that full $100 million, you know, what your priorities are,
    what would come first or what would drop off first. We need to
    understand that.
        I would like very much to get this job done just as rapidly
    as you would. I just do not know whether I will be granted an
    allocation that is sufficient to do it. So we are going to need
    the help of both of you in setting priorities.
        With that, this portion of the hearing is over. Mr.
    Thompson, you and your people can leave or stay and listen, as
    you will, but your time is done. If you have more important
    things to do, we certainly understand that.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will drop back
    here and wait a few more minutes to see if any other questions
    arise in this area to support Kevin.
        Senator Gorton. Fine.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you for your time.

                        summary statement of kevin gover

        Senator Gorton. With that, Mr. Gover, we will hear your
    opening statement on general BIA matters.
        Mr. Gover. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With me is
    Michael Anderson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian
    Affairs.
        Let me first thank the chair for all of the candor and the
    cooperation that we have received in the past year,
    particularly for the help we received in the fiscal year 1999
    budget.
        We are able to accomplish some important things with the
    additional law enforcement money and with the money that goes
    to the land consolidation pilots, so that we can prove this
    concept that if we go out and start buying these small
    interests, we can begin closing accounts, reducing
    administrative costs and reconsolidating land in tribal
    ownership.
        Let me make it as clear as Mr. Thompson did that the trust
    program is our top priority. Obviously, when we deal in many
    areas of human need, it is difficult to designate a single
    priority. Yet, it is clear to us that unless we attack this
    particular problem of trust management with everything we have,
    we are not going to get it done.
        We have seen halting starts in the past, where they got
    halfway through a reform and for some reason it just never
    crossed the finish line. So we are anxious to do everything
    that we possibly can in that area. To that end, as I stated
    before the committee on the other side, if other things have to
    suffer, they simply have to suffer in order for us to
    accomplish this objective.
        Having said that, we also appreciate the constraints within
    which the committee has to operate and know that not every
    request can be granted. We do want to designate our priorities
    to the committee, both in the trust area and in other program
    areas.
        Our two other priorities beyond trust are the same as
    yours. They are law enforcement and education. We have made a
    request for an additional $20 million for our law enforcement
    programs. Last year's money has been very effectively spent. As
    we promised the committee, less than 10 percent went to the
    creation of the new regional administration for law
    enforcement. Over 90 percent went to uniformed officers,
    criminal investigators, prison guards, and equipment and
    services for the tribes.
        The $20 million we are requesting this year would again be
    spent in a variety of ways, I think ideally on more uniformed
    officers. This would be the first priority. We have also put in
    a specific request for some high-grade radio equipment. One of
    the things that is happening to our officers is far too often
    they find themselves out of touch without any backup.
        That is due to distances, due to terrain, but mostly due to
    an old system that we have been sort of holding together for a
    number of years. With these new radios, we would be able to
    ensure that our officers are never alone in the field, or at
    least not out of communication with assistance.
        Let me also note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that in the
    past year, three tribal and BIA law enforcement officers died
    in the line of duty. In each case, they were car accidents,
    usually related to very long hours and the long distances that
    tribal police and BIA officers are forced to work.
        Turning next to schools, we have asked for increases in
    both the area of construction and school operations. If forced
    to choose between the two, I am confident that the problem with
    facilities is our most severe problem at this point.
        In the past year, we find ourselves responding to various
    crises in our facilities, whether it be a sprinkler system that
    does not work to much more serious issues, like PCB
    contamination in our classrooms.
        We had another incident where there was a very severe lead
    contamination to an entire school campus because of old heating
    equipment and some poor methods of disposing of the ash from
    the boiler.
        So as Senator Burns said earlier, our schools no longer
    represent in many cases an effective learning environment.
    While I am very pleased with the kind of progress that our
    instructional program is making in terms of educational
    reforms, in terms of the quality of the teachers and the
    personnel involved with the schools, we are basically providing
    a modern education in sub-modern facilities. We are very
    anxious to do something about that.
        Under the proposal we made this year, were the committee to
    grant our request and the necessary authorizing legislation be
    enacted, we would be able to complete the school construction
    priority list that has existed since 1992. The last of the 16
    schools could all be begun, not completed.
        But certainly the funds for all those schools could be
    committed in fiscal year 2000, so that we could turn our
    attention to the known backlog of other schools that need to be
    replaced.
        We estimate a minimum of 60 other schools that have to be
    replaced at a cost of a minimum of $1 billion. We realize that
    those are very large numbers.
        Senator Gorton. What share of all Indian students do these
    schools educate, as against the general public school systems
    of the states in which they are located?
        Mr. Gover. About 10 percent of all Indian students are in
    BIA schools, about 53,000 students.
        Senator Gorton. What determines those 10 percent? Are they,
    generally speaking, located far from an available public
    school?
        Mr. Gover. They do tend to be----
        Senator Gorton. How is it broken down?
        Mr. Gover. They do tend to be extremely rural. Of course,
    there was a time when BIA had schools at virtually every
    location, on every reservation. As time has passed and most of
    the reservations become far less remote, the Congress has
    chosen to provide that the kids would go to public school.
        The schools that remain, though, are, in general, in places
    like the Navajo Nation in the desert Southwest, in the northern
    great plains, and tend to be very remote from public schools.
        Senator Gorton. The public school districts that encompass
    Indian reservations and educate Indian children are
    beneficiaries of impact aid, are they not?
        Mr. Gover. Yes, they are. But without going into a
    dissertation on Impact Aid, it is not having all of the effect
    that one would expect, certainly not a dollar-per-dollar effect
    because of the equalization formulas that are in place in some
    states.
        So Impact Aid is good in the sense that it is additional
    resources for a school system, but it is not a dollar-for
    dollar addition to operating budgets in those school districts.
    So still, the public school districts are finding it extremely
    expensive to educate reservation children. Yet they continue to
    do so for 90 percent of the kids.
        Senator Gorton. Please go on.
        Mr. Gover. Let me mention quickly, Mr. Chairman, two
    committee directives that we received in the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations legislation, and report on their progress.
    First, again, let me apologize for the fact that we have not
    produced the TPA report by the April 1 date. We are very close
    to completing that work.
        We spent a good 9 months working with a workgroup
    consisting of tribal leaders, tribal program directors and BIA
    personnel, to develop some information that I think you are
    going to find very useful in understanding just how it is we
    allocate TPA.
        We think that it turns out that, in general, TPA is
    allocated in a rational way. There are exceptions, and we will
    point some of those out for the benefit of the committee, along
    with some suggestions on how those disparities ought to be
    dealt with.
        The committee also directed us to prepare a report on tort
    liability. We have again been working with tribal leaders and
    others to develop that report. We will be sending out a survey
    instrument to all of the tribes and to their insured by the end
    of this week. We expect a pretty quick return on that. It is
    not a complicated survey. We are very hopeful of having their
    report available to the committee by mid-summer.
        So we are making progress in both areas. We wish we might
    have moved a little faster, but we are doing the best that we
    can.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, we obviously have a number of
    other specific requests that are all in the written statement.
    Let me just mention one relatively small ticket item, which is
    that we request the reestablishment of the Office of Alcohol
    and Substance Abuse Prevention. It is a $400,000 request.
        What we would like to do is simply to keep this issue on
    the front burner. It is a primary problem in most Indian
    communities. It is, in my mind, the single largest obstacle to
    real progress in the social and economic condition of
    reservation Indian people.
        While it is not appropriate for BIA to administer a large
    programmatic initiative to fund tribes to do this, it does seem
    to us that there is a place for the Bureau in the coordination
    of the many agencies in the Federal Government that fund these
    sorts of activities.
        We have established both a governmental workgroup and a
    tribal leader workgroup looking at these issues. They will
    produce two documents. One is a directory of resources
    available from the Federal Government for all aspects of
    alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment. Second, a
    catalog of successful tribal programs that have been identified
    by our tribal workgroup, most of whom are people who are
    themselves in recovery from alcoholism or addiction.
        Senator Gorton. Would such an office not be more
    appropriate in the Indian Health Service?
        Mr. Gover. We think that--well, first of all, the Congress
    has directed the establishment of an office in BIA. IHS does
    have a major initiative, but we have been working closely with
    them. We believe that should be the centerpiece of the effort.
        As I say, we do think there is a role for the Bureau in
    coordinating the various agencies throughout the Government.
    There are alcohol and substance abuse prevention funds
    everywhere from the Justice Department to the Housing and Urban
    Development, the Department of Education, and the White House.
        We found that they do not talk to each other a lot. We
    found that it has been a good place for us to be the ones to
    convene everyone so that we can coordinate our activities in
    working with the tribes a little better.

                               prepared statement

        Most of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it just sends an
    important message to Indian Country that it is part of the
    business of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to deal with this
    critical problem. To not have an effort, even if a small one,
    sends exactly the wrong signal, because this is the most
    disabling malady in virtually any Indian community in the
    country.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Kevin Gover
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: The
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) is the primary agency of the Federal
    Government charged with the responsibility to administer Federal Indian
    policy and to fulfill the Federal trust responsibility for American
    Indian Tribes, Alaska native villages and Tribal organizations. Federal
    Indian policy and the trust responsibility are derived from the special
    legal and political relationship between the Tribes and the Federal
    Government. This unique (legal and political) relationship is rooted in
    American history. Much of Federal Indian policy evolves around this
    ``special'' relationship which is often broadly expressed in terms of
    legal duties, moral obligations and expectancies that have arisen from
    the historical dealings between Tribes and the Federal Government.
        Today, the Bureau provides services directly, or through Self-
    Determination contract, grant and compact agreements with Tribes, to
    more than 1.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 31 states.
    The scope of Bureau programs is extensive and covers virtually the
    entire range of state and local government services.
        More importantly, the Bureau's programs are funded and operated in
    a highly decentralized manner with more than 90 percent of all
    appropriations expended at the local level with an increasing amount
    operated by Tribes and Tribal organizations under contracts or self-
    governance compacts. In addition, the Bureau administers more than 43
    million acres of Tribally-owned land, more than 11 million acres of
    individually owned land held in trust status and 443,000 acres of
    Federally-owned land.
        The Bureau's most basic responsibilities are its trust obligations
    and facilitating Tribal self-determination. However, while the
    protection of trust resources is a fundamental responsibility, Tribal
    communities struggling to meet the basic needs of their communities
    must compete for the same limited resources the Bureau uses to protect
    trust resources. The Bureau's success relies on judiciously balancing
    these competing mandates.
                                  organization
        The Bureau has two service components reporting to the Assistant
    Secretary-Indian Affairs:
        The Deputy Commissioner for Indian Affairs has line authority over
    12 Area Offices, 83 Agency offices, three subagencies, six field
    stations, and two irrigation project offices. The Deputy Commissioner
    provides program direction and support through the Directors for the
    Offices of Tribal Services, Trust Responsibilities, Law Enforcement,
    Economic Development, Management and Administration, Indian Gaming, and
    the Facilities Management and Construction Center.
        The Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs supervises
    26 education line officers stationed throughout the country and two
    post-secondary schools. During the 1997-98 school year, the Office of
    Indian Education Programs supported the operation of 115 day schools,
    56 boarding schools, and 14 dormitories which house Indian children who
    attend public schools.
        The Bureau's headquarters offices are located in Washington, D.C.
    and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Bureau's organization and regions are
    outlined in the justifications. As a highly decentralized organization,
    nearly 95 percent of Bureau's staff work is performed in schools, Area
    and Agency offices, and other field locations.
        In fiscal year 1996, the Office of Trust Funds Management was
    transferred from the Bureau to the Office of Special Trustee pursuant
    to Secretarial Order 3197.
        At the end of fiscal year 1998, the Bureau's total employment was
    9,687 full-time equivalents.
                        fiscal year 2000 budget summary
        The 2000 budget request for the Bureau is $1,902,054,000 in current
    appropriations, an increase of $155,626,000 above the 1999 Enacted
    level. The budget stresses the resources Tribes need to provide basic
    reservation programs and develop strong and stable governments, ensure
    accreditation of Bureau schools, address critical infrastructure needs,
    and meet the Secretary's trust responsibilities. The Bureau continues
    to keep administrative costs low; more than 9 of every 10 dollars
    appropriated to the Bureau is provided directly to programs on Indian
    reservations. The request allows the Bureau to attain its goals which
    are designed to meet the commitment to American Indians and Alaska
    Natives as outlined in its Strategic Plan and annual performance plans.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Bureau seeks to
    maintain core existing programs on behalf of our trust responsibilities
    and commitments to facilitate self-determination for American Indians
    and Alaska Natives. While the Bureau has evolved in its role as trustee
    for the American Indian and Alaska Natives from the paternalism of the
    1800's to its role today as partner, Tribes continue to turn to the
    Bureau for a broad spectrum of critical and complex programs
    administered either by the Tribes or the Bureau--from an education
    system for more than 53,000 elementary and secondary students; to 28
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges; to law enforcement and
    detention services on more than 200 reservations; to social services
    programs for children, families, the elderly and the disabled; to
    management of the forest, mineral, fishery and farmland resources on
    trust land; to the maintenance of more than 25,000 miles of roads on
    rural and isolated reservations; to economic development programs in
    some of the more depressed areas in the nation; to the implementation
    of legislated land and water claim settlements; to the replacement and
    repair of schools; and to the repair of structural deficiencies on high
    hazard dams. The joint Trust and Federal responsibilities are daunting
    as the Bureau strives to uphold the President's commitment to the
    American Indian and Alaska Native; Indian Country needs in every
    program are massive.
                          operation of indian programs
        For fiscal year 2000, the total request for Operation of Indian
    Programs is $1,694,387,000, an increase of $110,263,000 over the fiscal
    year 1999 Enacted level.
    Tribal priority allocations (TPA)
        TPA provides the principal source of funds for local units of
    Tribal Government, most of which are small and lack independent
    resources to meet the increasing costs of Tribal government operations.
    Beginning with fiscal year 1998, TPA comprises nearly half of the
    Bureau's operating budget. Increased funding in TPA is consistent with
    the Bureau's Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan. For fiscal
    year 2000, the TPA activity is funded at $716,139,000, an increase of
    $17,131,000 over the fiscal year 1999 Enacted level, which will help
    Tribes address some of the unmet needs in these basic programs.
    Shortfalls in these programs have become particularly serious with the
    reductions in this activity since 1995.
        Program increases proposed in this budget submission include
    $2,058,000 for New Tribes to support 8 new Tribes as they begin to
    establish viable Tribal government operations. Federal recognition,
    supervision and support over some Tribes was terminated by an Act of
    Congress. Others may not have become Federally recognized because they
    made no treaty with the United States prior to 1871 when treaty-making
    was prohibited by the Congress; or they may have negotiated a treaty
    which was not ratified by the Senate. A Federal court ruled in 1975
    that the United States has a trust responsibility to existing Tribes,
    regardless of whether the Government has acknowledged that
    responsibility by past Federal actions or previous recognition of the
    Tribe.
        An increase requested for Contract Support will provide $6,447,000
    over the 1999 Enacted level. In fiscal year 1998, the Bureau was able
    to provide only 80.34 percent of contract support needs, which has
    resulted in significant concern, anger and hardship with Tribes
    throughout Indian Country. Tribes are discussing the possibility of
    retrocession of programs back to the Bureau because appropriations are
    not sufficient to meet the rates as negotiated between the Tribes and
    the Office of the Inspector General. Given the downsizing at the
    Central, Area and Agency level that resulted from the severe budget
    reductions in fiscal year 1996, the Bureau has neither the staff nor
    the funding to resume Tribally-operated programs. The end result of
    retrocession would be no services provided to Indian families and
    communities, which is in direct conflict with the President's
    commitment of self-determination to Tribes. Given the level of budget
    reductions and increasing populations in Indian communities throughout
    the country in recent years, Tribes are challenged every day to
    maintain even level services.
        An increase of $3,000,000 is proposed for Small Tribes to support
    the operation of viable Tribal Governments in the State of Alaska. The
    requested funds will go entirely to small Tribes in the State of Alaska
    to move those Native Alaskans toward the Task Force recommended minimum
    level of funding of $200,000. An increase of $2,048,000 is requested
    for Welfare Assistance geared towards its Tribal Work Experience
    Program (TWEP) component. TWEP programs are administered by the Tribes
    for eligible general assistance recipients to provide these Indian
    individuals with the resources and means to gain proper work experience
    and job skills needed to successfully compete in the job market. It is
    an investment in recipients today to move them towards self-sufficiency
    tomorrow.
        An increase of $2.0 million is requested for Adult Care Facility
    Rehabilitation to bring 7 adult long-term care facilities on the Navajo
    Reservation to standard condition. Once the standard is attained, the
    facilities are eligible for funding of their operation and maintenance
    costs from the State Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
    Other recurring programs
        The prominent theme for the new millennium described by the
    President is the education of our children. The Bureau is responsible
    for the only major domestic elementary and secondary education system
    operated by the Federal Government. As such, it is incumbent that this
    system reflects the high standards President Clinton has set for all
    education. The request for school Operations, which will fund schools
    and dormitories serving more than 53,000 elementary and secondary
    students in 23 States, is $503,568,000, a program increase of
    $27,482,000 over the fiscal year 1999 Enacted level. The increase will
    ensure that schools can deliver quality education and provide safe and
    adequate transportation for an estimated increase in enrollment.
    Increases are also proposed in facilities operations, facilities
    maintenance, and administrative cost grants to encourage the
    continuation of schools going into grant status and under Tribal
    control.
        The budget increases operating grants to the 28 Tribally controlled
    community colleges by $7,100,000 over fiscal year 1999. The colleges
    have been successful in providing Indian youth with college degrees and
    eventual professional employment. They also promote entrepreneurship on
    reservations.
        An increase of $1.0 million is requested to assist Tribes in the
    return of the bison to Indian homelands and for the prudent development
    and management of bison herds and habitat on Indian reservations. Bison
    are sacred to American Indians and represent a powerful symbol of
    America and its heritage as a Nation.
    Non-recurring programs
        The budget includes trust investments crucial to program
    performance in the out years. The request level for the Bureau's
    environmental management program is $9,809,000, an increase of $3
    million more than appropriated in fiscal year 1999, to begin to address
    an estimated $200 million backlog of environmental cleanup work in
    Indian communities throughout the country. The EPA has demonstrated a
    vigorous interest in the Bureau's environmental compliance in recent
    years and has directed its enforcement actions at Bureau locations. The
    request level will provide the resources for the Bureau to conduct
    baseline assessments of all Bureau facilities and operations by the end
    of fiscal year 2002. An additional $1,247,000 is requested for
    endangered species to increase the number of Federally listed
    threatened and endangered species as well as support Tribal
    participation in species recovery. An additional $1,100,000 is
    requested for the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program to provide services in
    areas that have been under served as a result of the Navajo-Hopi
    disagreement. Other program increases include $4,002,000 for Water
    Rights Negotiation, $1,000,000 for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    re-licensing activities.
    Other programs
        An additional $400,000 is proposed for the establishment of the
    Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention to help stem the flow
    of alcohol abuse and illegal drugs in Indian Country. An increase of
    $900,000 is requested for a post secondary school, the Southwestern
    Indian Polytechnic Institute, to handle the increased need for
    resources due to its rising curriculum and enrollment.
                                  construction
        The request for the Bureau Construction appropriation is
    $174,258,000, with $108,377,000 for Education Construction. The Bureau
    will continue to make progress in eliminating the unobligated balances
    in Construction facilities projects. Increased emphasis on Tribal
    contracting for projects will be supported by the Bureau's Facilities
    Management and Construction Center awarding and approving officials
    until the Tribes and Agencies are fully trained to take over the
    construction contracting challenge.
                              special initiatives
    Law enforcement in indian country
        Fiscal year 2000 represents the second year of the multi-year
    Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, a
    jointeffort by the Bureau and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to
    combat the rising crime rates in Indian Country to fulfill the
    Presidential directive to the Secretary of the Interior and the United
    States Attorney General to work with Tribal Leaders to improve public
    safety in Indian Country.
        Pursuant to the Final Report of the Executive Committee for Indian
    Country Law Enforcement Improvements, significant investment by the
    Government is necessary to stem the increasing problem of crime in
    Indian Country. In simple terms, current resources are inadequate;
    continued infusion of manpower and financial resources are necessary to
    ensure that Indian communities receive the same quality and quantity of
    law enforcement services as their non-Indian counterparts.
        The initial investment in fiscal year 1999 for the Initiative
    provides the foundation from which the Bureau can begin addressing the
    shortages in law enforcement, but much more resources are needed to
    adequately respond to the concerns as outlined in the Final Report. The
    requested increase of $20.0 million continues to build on this
    foundation while complementing the efforts of the DOJ to maximize the
    use of the Federal dollar.
                                 tribal courts
        Going hand in hand with increasing the resources for law
    enforcement in Indian Country is the ability of Tribal Governments to
    handle the accompanying increase in caseloads; the fiscal year 2000
    increase requested is $2,565,000. More than 250 Tribal justice systems
    and courts of Indian offenses (serving 40 Tribes) are supported by
    Bureau funds. These Tribal courts must face the same issues State and
    Federal courts confront every day, such as child sexual abuse, alcohol
    and substance abuse, gang violence, and violence against women. Tribal
    court systems have historically been under funded and understaffed.
    With the Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country
    underway to improve law enforcement services in Indian Country, it is
    essential that additional support be provided to Tribal courts as it is
    expected with the effort to clean up crime, Tribal courts caseloads
    will increase dramatically. Tribal courts must have the capacity to
    adjudicate the resulting criminal cases and resolve disputes. This
    effort complements the Department of Justice's efforts to provide one-
    time (competitive) grant support to Tribes.
        In addition, Public Law 103-176, the Indian Tribal Justice Act,
    recognizes the situation in Indian Country to improve its judicial
    function to assist in keeping law and order for its constituency. The
    Bureau's requested increase will also focus on providing initial
    funding to Tribes for implementation of the Act.
                          alcohol and substance abuse
        Another factor in the efforts to reduce crime is the influence and
    effect of alcohol and substance abuse in Indian Country. An additional
    $400,000 is requested in fiscal year 2000 to establish the Office of
    Alcohol and Substance Abuse to provide training and technical
    assistance on prevention efforts and implementation by Tribes of their
    Tribal Action Plans regarding programs designed to reduce the incidents
    of alcohol and substance abuse in their communities.
                             education construction
    Replacement school construction
        Eight-two percent of the Bureau's building square footage is
    education space; the majority of the buildings are old and often in
    poor condition. With the Bureau responsible for the only major domestic
    elementary and secondary education system operated by the Federal
    Government, it is vital that we provide adequate facilities for this
    Nation's Indian school children to obtain an education. Research has
    demonstrated that placing instructional and residential programs in
    facilities that do not meet health and safety codes distract from the
    educational program. A point made by the President in Executive Order
    13096, which calls for creating educational opportunities for American
    Indian and Alaska Native students in our nation.
        To this end, the fiscal year 2000 request provides for a requested
    level of $39,859,000 for replacement of two schools--Seba Dalkai and
    Fond du Lac Ojibway--on the existing priority list for school
    replacement. As the President has stated in his call for modernization
    of our schools, it is through construction that our Nation will begin
    to meet our generation's historic responsibility to create 21st century
    schools. Schools may be operated directly by the Bureau or operated by
    Tribal organizations under the contracting authorities of Public Law
    93-638, as amended, or Public Law 100-297 grant.
        The Bureau's request is an intricate part of the President's
    education agenda which seeks to reduce class size and help communities
    renovate and build new schools. The request is also part of the
    Department's 5-Year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan.
        The Bureau is moving forward to eliminate its code and standard
    deficiencies, currently estimated for school-related facilities alone
    at approximately $743.0 million; the Bureau's total facilities backlog
    for education and non-education facilities is nearing the $1.0 billion
    mark. Projects included in the Plan outline the comprehensive strategy
    of the Department to address the most critical needs in the Bureau's
    backlog of construction and maintenance requirements. It is the most
    in-depth analysis and display of the enormity of the dire situation
    facing the Bureau in trying to maintain its facilities for the
    consumers we serve. It is a comprehensive list, causing the Bureau to
    reassess and validate its many facilities located throughout the Nation
    to fully capture the challenge we face in maintaining our
    responsibilities for Bureau-owned facilities and providing for safe and
    health environments for our constituency. The requested funding level
    of $39,859,000 for replacement school construction, a key factor in the
    success of the President's revitalization of Indian education, will
    greatly assist in reducing the mounting backlog of construction needs.
    School bond initiative
        An increase of $30 million is requested in fiscal year 2000 for
    school construction to enable Tribes and/or Tribal organizations to
    defease qualified school construction bonds by ensuring the repayment
    of principal to bond holders. This proposal is part of the
    Administration's school modernization initiative to provide school
    repairs and replacement in needy public school districts throughout the
    country. Funding for additional school construction or repairs is
    proposed as part of the second year of the Administration's facilities
    restoration initiative. These funds emphasize the Administration's
    commitment to the long-term stewardship of Federal lands and
    facilities.
                secretary's trust management improvement project
        Over $37 million is requested in the Office of the Special
    Trustee's 2000 Budget for the Bureau's components of the Trust
    Management Improvement Project's High Level Implementation Plan. Since
    the Plan's publication last July, BIA has been making steady progress
    in its trust reform efforts. Most significantly, in December 1998, the
    Bureau contracted with Artesia Data Systems of Dallas, Texas, for a new
    Trust Asset and Accounting Management System to replace the aging and
    antiquated automated systems for land title operations and land and
    lease management functions. The system will be piloted in the Billings
    area in June 1999, and the balance of areas are expected to be
    converted by December 2000. Additionally, in February, the Bureau
    awarded a data cleanup contract for Billings and Juneau areas. BIA's
    pre-conversion data cleanup process is expected to be completed by
    December 2000.
        This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be
    pleased to answer questions of the Subcommittee.

                                law enforcement

        Senator Gorton. You started with law enforcement, so I will
    start with law enforcement, too. Tell me the source of all law
    enforcement funds. Are the funds that are appropriated by this
    subcommittee the only funds that go into law enforcement on
    Indian reservations? Do some come from the Department of
    Justice or some other Federal programs?
        Mr. Gover. All three of those. The primary and the largest
    source of funding is the Office of Law Enforcement Services.
    Those funds are spent on the reservations in three ways, either
    by the Bureau directly--and we do maintain our own police
    forces.
        Our own BIA personnel carry out the law enforcement
    function in many communities--through self-determination
    contracts, where the tribe contracts with us using funds we
    provide to provide those law enforcement services in the
    community, and finally through self-governance compacts, which
    are similar to the contracts in that we provide the funding for
    the tribe to carry out the services themselves.
        In addition, we have done a survey, based on your question
    to me last year, and found that at least $30 million additional
    dollars are put into tribal law enforcement programs by the
    tribes themselves. That is a partial number, because we have
    not heard from every tribe. But of the, I believe it was, 150
    tribes we did get responses from, we know that they are
    contributing at least $30 million in addition to what the
    Bureau provides.
        Finally, the Department of Justice was provided $88 million
    by the Congress last year to support reservation law
    enforcement. I believe $30 million to $35 million of that was
    for uniformed officers on the reservations. That in total comes
    to probably around $160 million, $170 million.
        Senator Gorton. Did the tribes get all the money they were
    entitled to out of the Department of Justice funds?
        Mr. Gover. Not yet. But the grants--the time for when those
    grants go out has just arrived. So those grants will begin to
    be made this month, in fact.
        Senator Gorton. How do you determine the distribution of
    the funds that go to the tribes themselves, either by contract
    or to self-governing tribes, as opposed to your own BIA people?
    I rather suspect you have applications for more money than you
    can distribute, do you not?
        Mr. Gover. We do. In the past year what we have had to do
    is focus on the BIA-operated programs. Approximately 60 percent
    of the $20 million increase went to the BIA programs. They
    tended to be the least, or the most, understaffed and under-
    funded in the country. So we did do that.
        Plus the tribes are eligible for the Justice Department
    grants and Bureau of Indian Affairs programs are not. So given
    that the tribes had other options and the BIA had none, we
    thought it important to bring the BIA programs up to at least a
    level where we do not have single officer locations out there.
    That was all too common prior to fiscal year 1999.
        Senator Gorton. I do remember your testifying to that last
    year. To refresh my recollection, are the BIA officers
    generally used on smaller reservations? Is there any
    correlation between the size of the reservation and whether it
    has its own officers or yours?
        Mr. Gover. Some correlation. It tends to be the smaller
    reservations, but there are many exceptions to that
    observation. We do provide law enforcement services on several
    of the larger reservations.
        Senator Gorton. Let us go now to education. You said it is
    my priority and yours as well, although we have the triple
    problem of attempting to determine how much goes to operations,
    how much to construction and how much to repair. By my notes,
    Congress has provided funding for 10 of the 16 schools on the
    BIA's replacement school priority list. The remaining 6 would
    cost, we understand, about $111 million. You have asked for $40
    million for 2 of those.
        In requesting funds for Seba Dalkai and Fond du Lac, the
    Bureau skipped over Shiprock in New Mexico and the Tuba City
    school. I understand that Tuba City's design is not complete,
    but Shiprock would be ready for construction. Concerned tribes
    have contacted us, and I am sure you, about this.
        I have had the general feeling that we ought to follow the
    priority list, rather than to deal with this in any kind of
    political fashion. Can the funding be phased in such a way as
    to follow the priority list?
        Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, I actually do not know the answer
    to that. I can certainly ask our construction staff if that is
    a possibility. That is a good idea. We would prefer not to skip
    over a school. I think very simply the decision was made that
    even though the money to construct the schools were smilar, it
    was better to build two schools than just one. Had we gone with
    Shiprock, that would have been a single school in the
    construction program in fiscal year 2000.
        Senator Gorton. Will we get the same answer from you next
    year?
        Mr. Gover. Let me find out if we can phase that in, because
    I think that is an excellent compromise to having to chose
    between the schools.
        [The information follows:]
                     Phased Funding for School Construction
        Full funding for an entire capital project is preferable,
    particularly if the project cannot be divided into more than one useful
    segment. The replacement schools that are proposed in the fiscal year
    2000 President's budget are designed as single integrated structures.
    Providing phased funding could result in construction scheduling delays
    and lack of functional facilities to house the students in a timely
    manner. Also, Tribes that undertake construction or repairs through
    contract of grant are reluctant to accept phased funding because of
    difficultly in sub-contracting phases of a project. There is the
    potential for different companies being awarded sub-contracts on phased
    projects, which would interfere with one another and the overall
    continuity of construction of the facilities. Of the two schools
    proposed for replacement in the budget request, one is being contracted
    with the Seba Dalkai School Board, Inc. and the other is proposed for a
    grant award with the Fond du Lac Ojibway Tribe. In addition,
    incremental funding for a capital asset, in which funds could be
    obligated to start the segment (or project), despite the fact that the
    funds are insufficient to complete a useful segment or project, is
    inconsistent under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11,
    Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates.
        Shiprock Alternative School is scheduled to completer design in
    September 1999, thus the school would be ready for construction funding
    as early as fiscal year 2000. Although, phasing is not recommended, the
    school construction could be addressed in the same manner as Pyramid
    Lake and Sac and Fox School were in the fiscal year 1998
    appropriations.

                                    schools

        Senator Gorton. I can certainly sympathize with your
    problems. The highest priority I find in members of my
    subcommittee is always the school in their state.
        Mr. Gover. Yes; well, two schools represent four votes.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Gorton. Both here and there, I assume.
        Now, you have already told us that for the long range you
    have a billion dollars' worth of school construction. For how
    many schools?
        Mr. Gover. For at least 60 that we know we have to replace.
    We are very close, in fact, we have delivered to OMB the report
    that I guess it was this subcommittee that requested it last
    year, a 5-year plan for doing away with or eradicating the
    backlog. We expect that to be ready, again, before the end of
    the month. The committee will have that available as well.
        The bottom line, of course, is money. We are trying and
    using every advantage that the scoring system offers to try to
    generate more funds in as painless a way as possible and
    without diminishing other priorities. But, for example, the
    additional $30 million that we request beyond the $30 million
    that you mentioned will support about $70 million to $75
    million in bonding.
        It would allow the principal repayment of $70 million to
    $75 million in bonds, if the President's School Construction
    Initiative were enacted.
        Senator Gorton. Well, that is a good question, and of
    course a big if.
        Mr. Gover. Yes.
        Senator Gorton. Do you know where that legislation is at
    this point?
        Mr. Gover. I do not. I do not know. I am not aware that
    there has been a sponsor. I am sure that the legislation is
    prepared, because I have seen it. But I do not even know that
    it has been sent to the Congress yet.
        Senator Gorton. Was the Bureau an active part in drafting
    that bonding legislation?
        Mr. Gover. We were in the sense that once the idea began to
    make the circuit around the various agencies, we were certainly
    allowed our input. I think our comments were taken seriously
    and reflected in the legislation.
        Senator Gorton. Where would the money come from to repay
    the bonds?
        Mr. Gover. The money to repay the bonds would--basically
    what we would do is take this $30 million and invest it so that
    in 15 years, it would represent the amount necessary to pay off
    the principal of the bonds, whatever that might be. That is why
    I say the $30 million would support about $70 million to $75
    million in bonds, because we would invest it, and repay the
    bonds at the end of 15 years.
        Senator Gorton. You would invest it where?
        Mr. Gover. In Federal securities, obviously in T-bills and
    that sort of thing, so they are no-risk investments. The
    interest payments on those bonds come in the form of tax
    credits to the bondholders. That is the idea behind the
    President's initiative.
        So for that $30 million, the tribes would be able to issue
    over $70 million in bonds. That would allow for that much
    school construction. That is why we say we could finish the 16-
    school priority list in fiscal year 2000 were the authorizing
    legislation to be enacted and were the committee to grant our
    request.
        Senator Gorton. Let us go on to school repair. Are we even
    keeping up with repair and maintenance and remodeling needs?
        Mr. Gover. No. We are losing ground in repair as well. What
    you see in the request that is before you, represents only the
    most critical health and safety needs. It does not represent
    the money that we need to properly maintain these facilities.
        One of the questions the Congress has to ask and that we
    have to address is, it will make no sense for us to build a lot
    of new schools only to have them fall into disrepair and fall
    far short of their useful life. So we really are talking about
    a major commitment.
        Even were the Congress to fund all the school construction
    that is necessary, the maintenance requirements would be large,
    but well worth it. It is better than replacing all these
    schools. One of the reasons we need to replace so many schools
    is they were never properly maintained.
        Senator Gorton. Before going on, I would just like to say I
    do not have any particular questions about school operations,
    but obviously the day-to-day operations, the teachers, your
    recruitment and the like, is vitally important as well. Part of
    the excruciating nature of dividing up an inadequate amount of
    money for all of our programs, both within Indian programs and
    across our subcommittee's jurisdiction, is just that. It is
    setting priorities of money needs to various entities.
        Obviously, my statement is the same to you as it was to the
    special trustee. You have heard this before. It really is
    doubtful that all of these initiatives are going to pass that
    are of a legislative nature, or that we are going to have the
    kind of money that I would consider quite appropriate for the
    Department of Interior programs.
        So again this year as we had last year, we are going to
    need your help, at least informally, in setting priorities.
        Senator Dorgan is here now. Each of the members who has
    been here has either two or three hearings going on at the same
    time. Both the one on the Olympics and the one at the
    Department of Energy are hearings of committees on which I am a
    member.
        So, Senator Dorgan, I think I will simply turn it over to
    you for whatever statement you would like to make. When you are
    finished, you may adjourn the hearing, unless someone else is
    here. If that is the case, you can turn it over to them.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be
    able to conduct a fair amount of business in your absence.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Gorton. In my absence, I suspect you will. You do
    not have a sufficient quorum to spend any money, though.
        Senator Dorgan. You are right. You are correct.
        Senator Gorton. So we will trust you.
        Senator Dorgan [presiding]. You are correct about that.
    [Laughter.]
        Let me just mention to you that I have been at the Commerce
    Committee hearing and following this have to go to the hearing
    on the Energy Committee and the security at the labs. That is
    why I was not here for the statement.
        I have read Mr. Gover's statement, and I appreciate
    especially the work that you have done as subcommittee chairman
    on these issues. I would like to ask a couple questions. Thank
    you very much for your courtesy.
        Mr. Gover, let me focus just for a moment on Indian
    schools. Then I want to talk to you just for a moment about
    housing, as well, and health care. But on schools, the chairman
    indicated, and you know well, that we face a tremendous
    backlog. Frankly, the administration budget, I think at your
    urging, finally does begin to take some steps, halting steps,
    and probably inadequate steps, but some steps in the right
    direction.
        With these steps, we are not going to get to where we need
    to get to to make sure that these young children who are our
    responsibility, our trust responsibility, are being served the
    way we should serve them from an educational standpoint. Let me
    just mention a couple of schools for you. I could mention
    schools in other states that I know about as well, but let me
    mention the ones in North Dakota.
        At the Ojibwa Indian School there is report after report
    after report that tells us that these children are going to
    school in circumstances that are not appropriate and, in many
    cases, not safe.
        As you know, the central school building there is over 100
    years old and has been condemned. So the result is that you
    have all these kids placed in trailers.
        I have been there. I have seen exposed wiring. I have seen
    conditions that should not exist. We have reports that describe
    the circumstances. Some day, God forbid, there will be a fire
    in the middle of the winter that will sweep through those
    portable trailers, and there will be loss of life, loss of
    young lives. Everyone will scratch their heads and say: How did
    that happen?
        It happened because the Congress and the administration
    have not responded with the resources necessary to give those
    kids what they deserve, a school that is safe and a school that
    is good for their education needs.
        The Standing Rock School. I was at the Standing Rock
    School, as you know, last year. I worked with you extensively
    on that. Instead of worrying about their ABCs, those kids are
    worrying about PCBs. I mean, that school was closed. Those kids
    were all herded to the gymnasium with temporary partitions.
    When I grabbed the partition, you could swing them 6, 8, 12
    inches. I worried that those partitions would fall on those
    kids.
        We had to spend months and months cleaning up a PCB mess in
    a school, and that school still needs apparently anywhere from
    $8 million to $10 million investment.
        Cannon Ball Elementary School. That is not your
    responsibility, but it is a school just north of Fort Yates
    that has no tax base. A little third grade girl named Rosie
    said to me as I toured the school--it has 140 kids, two
    bathrooms and one water fountain and no capability to hook a
    computer into the Internet, over-crowded classrooms, a terrible
    situation. The bulk of that school has been condemned. One of
    the rooms they have to evacuate about weekly because of sewer
    gas coming up into the rooms these kids are using.
        The little girl said to me, ``Mr. Senator, can you build me
    a new school?''
        Well, regrettably, I cannot do that by myself. But that
    young third grader walking into a classroom is not well-served.
    Her future is not served by our lack of responsibility here to
    the needs of her and her classmates.
        So I just want to say to you that this need exists in a
    very critical way. We are not, the administration and the
    Congress are not, taking aggressive enough steps to meet it. In
    the majority budget that was just passed, Senator Domenici, I
    believe, added provisions for up to $200 million more in school
    construction above the administration budget. But we have to
    tell the President and OMB, and you know this, Mr. Gover, that
    this is a priority.
        Those children cannot fend for themselves. They are our
    responsibility. We have trust responsibility for them. The fact
    is we should be ashamed, we should be ashamed, for having put
    off the needed investments to make sure these kids are going to
    safe schools and good schools.
        It is unfair to these children, unfair to young second and
    third graders and fourth and fifth graders, to send them into
    classrooms that do not adequately prepare them and do safeguard
    them.
        So I just want to put in my statement again this year that
    I appreciate that you have gotten the administration to move in
    a halting way to add some things here. In fact, I know it is
    your work, because I worked with you to have the administration
    make certain that part of this school modernization program
    would apply to Indian schools as well. That only happened
    because we pushed to make that happen.
        But can you give me some response to how we not just get
    rid of this backlog or get rid of the list--no one even knows
    how the list was developed--but then how do we go beyond that
    to do what is necessary to meet our responsibility?
        Mr. Gover. Well, first, Senator, I agree with everything
    you have just said. As you know, we have advocated within the
    administration to increase the commitment to Indian schools. I
    am scared to death that what is ultimately going to happen is a
    tragedy like you described. Then everybody is going to say:
    Well, we have got to do something. You know, let us go fix
    this.
        But it is too late at that point. I do believe, and I will
    say this in defense of the administration, we made a certain
    request last year. We did not get what we asked for. We are
    reluctant to make a request that goes far beyond anything we
    have ever received until we start seeing the incremental
    increases that we have been asking for.
        I will also say that the total request this year represents
    $100 million in school construction. That is a lot. Yet that is
    not enough. That is not enough, but it is a lot. It is much
    more than has been thrown into the problem in the past.
        We are going to send the committee a report that will
    describe the schools that we believe need to be replaced, that
    estimates the amounts. It basically says: Here is what has to
    be spent in order to achieve this result of putting every BIA
    pupil in a safe school.
        From there, Senator Dorgan, I find it very frustrating that
    we even have to explain the obligation the United States
    undertakes when it chooses to have an elementary school. It
    offends me that--for example, we begin to look at the DOD
    school system that is maintained for military dependents. As
    one would expect, they have a sparkling school system,
    wonderful buildings, excellent teacher pay, and a great
    program.
        The only other school system the United States is
    responsible for directly are the BIA schools. Yet for some
    reason, notwithstanding the resources that go into the DOD
    schools, the BIA schools go begging year after year after year.
        One is left to draw the unfortunate conclusion--and I have
    had tribal leaders and school administrators say to me, ``Is it
    because we're Indians?'' I mean, how can they do this? How
    could the United States, the richest country in the world, do
    this to schools that it is responsible for?
        I will continue to push OMB. I will add that OMB has to
    clear the report we are going to send you that addresses this
    5-year plan. I am going to need your help to push these
    proposals through the administration. But I think, Senator, we
    just continue to make these points over and over again. I would
    love to have a conversation with the President about this,
    because I know he would not stand for it, if he knew this. But
    getting that message to the President is difficult.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, it is the President. It is this
    President, the past President, the one before him. It is the
    Congress, this Congress and every Congress before it, that has
    not met its responsibility. Just in recent weeks I toured a
    school on a military base, a wonderful school, one I was proud
    to see.
        I was proud of the teachers. I was glad that the students
    had the capability they had. These young tykes were showing me
    how they were doing all kinds of work on the Internet. What a
    great school, and what a wonderful thing for these students.
        Then I go to Ojibwa or I go to the gymnasium at Standing
    Rock and see the difference. I think, you know, it is the same
    responsibility that we have, and we are not meeting it. It is a
    tragedy for these young children. It is not their fault. I
    mean, it is not their fault they live in circumstances, in many
    cases, in circumstances of poverty where there is not an
    adequate tax base.
        We ought not walk a second or third grade young woman like
    Roseie through a school door and have to be ashamed of the
    school that young child enters when that school is our
    responsibility. We have a responsibility to do something about
    that.
        I would hope--incidentally, when you talk about OMB, I
    would hope that with Mr. Lew and others you would say to them:
    Here is what we need. None of this incremental nonsense. Here
    is what we need next year, now, in this budget to fix the
    schools and repair the schools and build the schools necessary
    to meet our responsibility to these kids. If they say, well,
    that is something we cannot even entertain, let us have a fight
    about that. But at least let us fight about the real number.
        You know, last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill that
    passed, $1 billion in emergency funds was stuck in for national
    missile defense, $1 billion that was not asked for, was not
    needed, was not requested by the Defense Department. I checked
    just in the last week, they could not use the $1 billion.
        They found a way to put $600 million of it in national
    missile defense contracts in very unique and creative ways, but
    it was creative to do that because they did not want it and did
    not need it, said they could not use it. The Congress said,
    ``We demand we give you $1 billion more for national missile
    defense.''
        So even being very creative, they were able to find $600
    million to stick it in some of these little accounts; $400
    million they could not even use.
        Now that is last October, a priority by some here saying:
    National missile defense, the sky is the limit. We are willing
    to throw money at it. But education of Indian kids, sorry, that
    is just not a big priority. That is wrong.
        Now, Senator Domenici is coming in the room, and he has
    spent a lot of time and effort on this issue as well. We need,
    in my judgment, with this Congress and this administration, to
    confront this issue in a very significant and aggressive way to
    meet our responsibility to these kids.
        Let me just go to one other point, and then I know Senator
    Domenici will want to talk about this.
        Senator Domenici, we have been talking about education,
    repair, construction of these schools and the responsibility,
    the administration's budget, the responsibility of the
    administration and Congress in the recent two decades or so on
    this issue.
        I want to just turn to one other point. I have been trying
    to arrange a meeting at the White House, as you know, and we
    had to cancel it. It was scheduled for last Monday with Indian
    tribal leaders and others, talking about the emergency that
    exists in housing and health care.
        I told on the floor of the Senate a story about Sarah Swift
    Hawk, who, on January 2, died on the Rosebud Reservation. She
    was a grandmother. She went to bed at night in a house. Where
    windows would have been, there was thin plastic sheeting
    covering the holes. There was one cot. So the grandmother used
    the cot. Four children and the mother and father, they slept on
    the floor with two blankets, huddled together. The grandmother
    slept on the cot.
        It was 45 below zero that night. The next morning when they
    woke up, they found Sara dead, frozen to death. That is not in
    a third world country. That is here. That is in our country,
    and circumstances where we have a housing emergency as well in
    many of these areas.
        It is almost unthinkable, a house without windows, without
    adequate furniture, without heating. You have a grandmother
    laying on a cot freezing to death on January 2. I mean, it is
    just unthinkable. You read about this in third world countries,
    but not here.
        So we have this housing emergency. I have been deeply
    involved in trying to move houses that are going to be
    destroyed from military bases. We have saved hundreds of them
    from being bulldozed over. Instead, we are moving them to
    reservations. But we need money for infrastructure to hook them
    up to water and sewer and to heat.
        So all of these things represent just an overwhelming need:
    housing, health care, education. I have to confess to you,
    there are many times over the recent years I have thought, you
    know, the best thing is probably just to decide to let us
    abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Let us just flat out
    abolish it. I do not know of anybody that has been able to come
    and grab the reins and make much of a difference.
        It probably pains you to hear that from me. I know you are
    trying very hard. But frankly, we do not have the resources.
    The resources have not been put into these accounts. I am not
    convinced that the BIA is not so bureaucratic it could not
    effectively use them anyway.
        So I just have this terrible frustration about the
    emergencies that I think exist in education for these innocent
    children, who so much deserve our help, and housing and health
    care. The stories, I could go on for an hour about what I have
    seen in housing and health care.
        You know, I hope that we can find a way to add substantial
    resources. I hope one day somebody would decide that sticking
    $1 billion in a program that nobody asked for and they cannot
    use would be much less a priority than using that money to help
    children and help others who are suffering immensely on some of
    these reservations.
        Mr. Gover. Well, again, Senator, I agree with most of what
    you said. I do think there is some good news here. For one
    thing, we have overhauled the way that the BIA spends its
    education construction money and reduced the amount of time it
    takes for us to build a school from 7 years down to 3 years and
    even manage to build one school in a single year, from design
    to ribbon cutting.
        That is very much to the credit of the Facilities
    Management and Construction Center, who literally have
    overhauled the way they do their business.
        Second, we are going to be begin to take new applications,
    applications for replacement school construction, for the first
    time since 1992. Now that is in anticipation that we are going
    to see some substantial funds so that we can complete the
    existing priority list. But nevertheless, at least we can begin
    to have that next generation of schools. So schools like Ojibwa
    can know that they are on the list at long last and that the
    trailers are not a permanent condition.
        I, too, wish that we had all the resources we need just to
    meet the basic human needs in Indian Country. We know that we
    fall far short. The TPA report that we will be providing later
    this month will demonstrate that very clearly.
        If it were up to me, we would get three times the money we
    get. I do believe we could spend it and spend it well. Most of
    our funds still go directly to the tribes so that they can
    provide the services. We would love for all of our service
    operations on the reservations to be handled by the tribes
    themselves.
        I think that if we got more money, more tribes would
    contract. The BIA has to be unique in the sense that the more
    money we get, the smaller our agency becomes, the fewer Federal
    employees there are, because that means the tribes are taking
    over these programs. That is what we want to see.
        So I sometimes get this overwhelming sense of despair, when
    you see the scope of the problems that exist in Indian Country.
    But I do not see that giving up is an option. So we will
    continue to try.
        Senator Dorgan. I am not suggesting giving up. I am
    suggesting being much, much more aggressive and trying to find
    a way in which we in Congress and the administration can
    understand our responsibility does not allow us to compromise
    on this issue. You cannot compromise on what you must provide
    for education purposes for these young children. They are our
    responsibility.
        You make the point, and I think it is absolutely accurate,
    and probably Senator Domenici has done the same thing. You go
    to a school on a military base and it is a wonderful school.
    You go to a school 50 miles away on an Indian reservation, in
    which we have the same responsibility, but they are different
    kids, and you find deplorable conditions.
        Now that is intolerable, and it ought to change. We must
    stop it.
        Let me call on my friend, Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Are you the acting
    chairman this morning?
        Senator Dorgan. I have done a lot of business in the
    absence of the real chairman. He indicated that we should
    continue our questioning and then adjourn the hearing.
        Senator Domenici. Well, first, Mr. Secretary, let me
    apologize to you for being late. I would share with everyone
    the reason I was not here is we are having a closed hearing
    with reference to the espionage efforts by the People's
    Republic of China versus our nuclear weapon secrets. It is
    obviously a very serious problem. I called in a couple times to
    make sure you had not gone before I could get here.
        First let me say--if no one has said it, I will. If
    somebody else said it, it deserves being said again--you are
    doing a good job. You are very forthright with Members of the
    Congress. It is your objective to indicate where we cannot do
    what Indian people ask us to do, and you indicate clearly to us
    what you think we ought to do that we are not doing, and I
    compliment you for that.
        I think the Bureau is being run a little better, and thank
    you for that.
        Mr. Gover. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. I do not think any good comes from saying
    we will solve the problem by getting rid of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs. I think you were speaking figuratively, but
    what we need to do is make it work right.
        Now, we could get to a point where BIA cannot be as
    productive as it ought to be. Then we might get you up here and
    ask for some major way to change it. I do not think that date
    is too far away.
        Now having said that, let me just say, last year in the
    appropriations process, not merely in the budget resolution, we
    put language in the Interior report asking the President of the
    United States, and thus you--you cannot act without OMB's
    permission--to submit a school construction plan. We asked you
    to produce for us a 5-year plan to totally take care of the
    school construction needs in Indian country for BIA schools.
    Now we were not joking. We said we think if you do it, Mr.
    President, the President of the United States, we think
    Congress would fund it.
        Now frankly, I have to say, the administration fell far
    short of that. In fact, I do not think we still have a 5-year
    plan to build all the schools that need to be rebuilt and the
    major construction and maintenance issues that are there,
    which, incidentally, could be more than $1.2 billion, according
    to some estimates.
        Now what we got instead was, in my opinion, a very meager
    proposal regarding Indian school construction. I am not blaming
    you, Mr. Secretary. You have to do what you are told. I would
    not be surprised if, in the exchange of information that
    occurred, as you went through your two or three cycles with
    OMB, that you probably on behalf of the Indian people asked for
    a lot more money for Indian school construction than was given
    to you.
        But to come up with this small increase and then say we
    could participate in some bonding issue, when we are kind of
    bonding ourselves because it is the Government issuing bonds--
    well, we do that when we spend more than we take in. We borrow
    money.
        So why would we have some special way to treat the taxpayer
    differently on those bonds? There are other bonds that are out
    there, if we want to incur debt. Just add it to that. We do not
    even have to incur debt. We have a surplus.
        So, look, I want to say to the Indian people, I do not know
    how much we will get this year. But we are trying very, very
    hard to get substantially more than the President suggested, to
    get on a path that we can tell you and tell Americans we are
    going to meet this responsibility once and for all. We are
    going to stop putting other priorities ahead of it.
        Now for anybody that does not believe this was not given a
    priority, then I would ask how come the President in his budget
    could have some 80 new programs and spend, you know, scores of
    millions of dollars for new things and not fund this need.
        I mean, I think a simple proposition could have been:
    Before we start anything new, could we take care of this? That
    would not have been a very difficult proposition. Frankly, you
    could have found the money, because you found the money in your
    budget for these other things.
        So I am very disturbed. I am sure my good friend, Senator
    Dorgan, is going to join me on appropriations in trying to get
    the maximum amount appropriated. But Senator Slade Gorton is
    going to be faced with a very difficult problem, because he has
    many, many things in that bill that Americans insist upon: Fish
    and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service,
    all the management things that are out there on the public
    domain, and many other things.
        We recommended the highest priority be given to a $200
    million appropriation by him in his bill. That does not mean he
    has enough money for it. It depends on a lot of other things.
    But we will be fighting for it, and we will continue to push
    the administration to give us a plan.
        Now, I have a number of parochial questions, and I am not
    going to burden this entire crowd with some further New Mexico
    issues. I am just going to give them to you for a response.
        Mr. Gover. OK.
        Senator Domenici. I think you know the questions, and I
    think you know the answers. It would be nice to have the
    answers as soon as possible from your Department.
        Now having said that, I also think we have some very
    excellent institutions wherein Indian people are getting
    educated for today's job market. I would hope that because we
    are short of money, that we do not penalize those that are
    doing a good job.
        I mean, we have a number of them in our state. We have a
    number of them in Indian country that are technical vocational
    schools that in today's market are producing trained young
    Indian people so they can go into $25,000, $30,000, $35,000
    start-up jobs in high tech industries. I mean, those schools
    are working in Albuquerque. They are working in Shiprock. They
    are working in other places.
        I hope you keep in mind that when the schools work, we have
    to keep them going. We have to try to get the rest of the
    Indian country to follow suit in these areas of appropriate
    training for today's job market. There should not be such
    difficulty in terms of employment among our Indian people,
    although they would have to move distances to take the jobs.
        Right now the most difficult problem for American business,
    believe it or not, is that it cannot find enough trained
    workers. I mean, if you put out a poll among medium-sized
    American business, and asked what is the principal impediment
    to growth, they will say, ``We cannot find enough workers to
    fill the jobs.''
        The jobs may take a year's training, but that is a truism,
    what I just said. Frankly, that should provide some very good
    opportunities, like it is to everybody.
        I am going to close on this and just ask you one question.
    What is the status of the 5-year construction planning effort?
    I am hearing reports that there is a two-tier plan that is
    being developed. The first tier would be to allocate about $100
    million a year to the backlog. The second tier would be to give
    the full cost of upgrading all BIA elementary and secondary
    schools.
        Is this the case? Could you briefly tell us what all this
    means?
        Mr. Gover. Yes. I am not familiar with this two-tier
    concept. That may be something that was under consideration at
    one point. We have now received from the construction staff a
    5-year plan to address repair or replacement of all Bureau-
    funded schools. I misspoke earlier. I said it was OMB. It is
    actually under review in the Department. It will go to OMB this
    week or early next week. That means we should have the report
    to the committee by the end of the month.
        I do not see any way around spending a lot of money. If we
    are going to do it in 5 years, that means, you know, assuming
    it is $1 billion, that is $200 million a year. I have not heard
    anything about a tiered approach.
        It may be we want to sort of ramp up so that in the first
    year we are less than $200 million, but in year five we are
    over $200 million, so that we can expand our ability to spend
    the money.
        But there is no alternative to spending an awful lot of
    money on this issue. I think it is overdue. It still astonishes
    me, as I was discussing with Senator Dorgan earlier, that we
    have to explain this to anyone in the administration or
    elsewhere, that this is a Federal responsibility.
        While certainly we appreciate being included in the
    Presidential Initiative, in the Bonding Initiative, the tribes
    are asking a very insightful question, which is, why should
    they issue bonds and incur long-term debt for Federal
    facilities? It does not make any sense for the poorest
    communities in the country to incur debt on behalf of the most
    powerful Government and the richest nation in the world.
        So we are not where we need to be. I do feel free to say
    that Assistant Secretary John Berry agrees that we are not yet
    where we need to be, and that he will--he has been a great
    advocate for the Indian schools. We keep trying, and we
    appreciate all the help that you are providing. We will just
    keep beating on this drum until somebody listens.
        Senator Domenici. Well, you make the best point. Whatever
    responsibility the U.S. Government has to help with public
    education in America, it is clearly optional on the part of the
    U.S. Government.
        We have gone from helping public education with 10 percent
    of the national budget of public education to 6 percent, back
    up to 8 percent, because we feel like we ought to put something
    in the local institutions that are not Federal, that belong to
    counties, districts, school districts, and states.
        But it is pathetic when we neglect the only one we are
    obligated to pay for--and if we do not, no one will. I mean,
    who will? I mean, it is our job. So we are doing all that,
    proposing to help the inner city schools rebuild. Yet here we
    sit with the only school system that belongs to the U.S.
    Government, except the military, and we do not pay for it.
        So you have to make that point with these people. If we
    need to get them over here, even OMB, we can haul them over
    here and set them out front and ask them: What in the world are
    you thinking about in terms of priorities? I mean, I would be
    glad to do that.
        If you think it would help, let us ask the chairman and
    bring them over here. We will bring in our good friend from
    OMB, Mr. Lew. He will explain. He will explain it well. If you
    have this big a crowd, it would be nice, though. He will have a
    sense that we worry about it.
        With that, I am going to turn the hearing back to our
    acting chairman for me to go to another hearing, and I assume
    you are about ready to go.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to ask one
    additional question, or make one additional point. Then I am
    intending to leave as well.
        But I wanted to make a point--well, let me also agree
    that--I did not say at the start of my conversation that when
    we went through the process of confirmation for your
    appointment, we had some lengthy discussions. I agree with
    Senator Domenici that you have done a good job under difficult
    circumstances. I have confidence that you have the right
    instincts and urges to do the right thing. I hope we can get
    you the resources to help.
        But let me just mention the issue of the Indian schools,
    such as the Wahpeton Indian School. In Wahpeton, North Dakota--
    I do not remember how many of those schools we have across the
    country, but the Wahpeton School, for example, is a boarding
    school that houses a lot of children who are sent there from
    all across the country, in many cases by tribal courts and
    others, children from troubled backgrounds, dysfunctional
    families, are sent to this boarding school.
        We need to have a therapeutic model there in order to help
    these children, because only part of their need is education.
    Part of it is also to respond to some of the serious problems
    they are confronting. We do not yet have a full therapeutic
    model to meet all those children's needs.
        To describe what kind of children these are, Joyce Burr,
    the woman who is the superintendent down at the Wahpeton
    School, told me of a young grade schooler who asked if he could
    stay at the school while the school is closed down over
    Christmas, he would be willing to pay for whatever meals he
    had, because he had no place to go, no family, no home.
        So he said, ``Could I just stay here alone at the school,
    if I would be willing to pay for whatever I eat, just to have a
    place to be over Christmas?''
        I mean, that is the kind of circumstances that students
    face. Schools like this have an awful time trying to meet their
    responsibilities, because it is not just education. It is
    therapeutic. They need the psychologists and the trained
    experts to help these kids deal with their needs.
        I hope you will help us also push for the resources
    necessary to do that.
        Mr. Gover. Senator Dorgan, I am grateful for that question.
    I have noticed the same thing. I mean, I do not have a large
    background in Indian education, but it became immediately
    apparent to me in seeing some of the situations that we have at
    several of our boarding schools that we need exactly what you
    describe, a therapeutic program.
        These kids are troubled young people. What we are doing for
    them is simply inadequate. I have asked the Acting Director of
    the Office of Indian Education Programs--I will not say I asked
    him. I will give him credit.
        He came to me and said, ``I want to work on such a
    therapeutic model. I want to work with IHS and see if we can
    find the resources to give these kids the kind of assistance
    they need.''
        So we will bring you a--I do not want to say a proposal,
    because it may not require money. It may just be a matter of
    using the money we have a little smarter. But understanding
    that these are not ordinary students and they need some
    additional assistance. But we will bring you a report on this
    matter by summertime, I would say.
        Senator Dorgan. That is very helpful. Would you also pass
    on to Assistant Secretary Berry that we appreciate his work? I
    know of his support on these issues. I think it is important to
    have him there fighting and working to try to resolve them as
    well.
        Mr. Gover. I will do so.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Dorgan. There will be some additional questions
    which will be submitted for your response in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
              Questions Submitted to the Office of Special Trustee
                 Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
        Earlier this year, Assistant Secretary Gover, in his prepared
    testimony on the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs before the Indian Affairs Committee, noted the
    Bureau was proposing a transfer of $5.068 million in base funds to the
    Office of the Special Trustee (OST) to begin implementation of the High
    Level Implementation Plan for the Trust Management Improvement Project
    (TMIP), with increased funding for the Bureau's responsibilities under
    the plan being sought in OST's fiscal year 2000 request, which, from
    his submitted testimony for today's hearing, appears to exceed $37
    million.
        The Senate has provided $6.8 million in the Supplemental for TMIP,
    but also directed that no funds will be spent in fiscal year 1999 to
    implement Secretary Babbitt's Order No. 3208, which would reorganize
    the Office of the Special Trustee.
        Finally, the Office of Special Trustee's fiscal year 2000 budget
    request is $100 million, an enormous increase of $60.5 million over the
    1999 enacted level of $39.5 million, with much of the requested
    increase going to the trust management improvement project.
        I know that you share our deep concern with the extraordinary
    problems that have been uncovered with respect to Indian trust
    accounts. Regrettably, it appears that the costs associated with
    solving these problems continue to escalate. While I appreciate the
    encouraging update you have provided in your testimony, I would like
    for you to clarify for the Committee, if possible, the bottom line for
    solving these problems.
        Question. Specifically, can you provide the Committee with your
    best estimate as to WHEN you expect to complete the reform of the
    system and what do you anticipate to be the Total Cost, including any
    expenditures required for litigation and settlement costs?
        Answer. The Department shares the concern of the Congress regarding
    the problems in trust fund accounts and is committed to resolving these
    long standing problems. Systems reform as outlined in the High Level
    Implementation Plan will substantially be implemented by the end of the
    year 2000, if the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Office of the Special Trustee is provided and a successful pilot of
    BIA's replacement lease management, accounts receivable, land records,
    and trust resource management systems is completed. Specifically, OST
    will complete nationwide implementation of the Trust Funds Accounting
    System (TFAS) by May 2000. Pending completion of the pilot, BIA plans
    to complete implementation of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management
    System (TAAMS) in the Area Offices by September 2000. Due to the
    extensive data clean-up requirements in the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    implementation of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System in
    some locations may not be fully operational until approximately June
    2001.
        While it is true that the Department is requesting increased budget
    authority for trust reform efforts in 2000, the Department does not
    concur with the characterization that costs for trust reform continue
    to escalate. On the other hand, costs to support litigation may very
    well continue to escalate. Additionally, court decisions stemming from
    the phase of the case that began trial June 10, 1999, could impact the
    costs of reform.
        In July 1998, the Department completed its High Level
    Implementation Plan (HLIP) for the Trust Management Improvement Project
    subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 1999 President's Budget
    to Congress. At HLIP's completion, the Department recognized that
    fiscal year 1999 cost estimates for HLIP implementation exceeded the
    amount requested in the 1999 President's Budget. Congress recognized
    this situation, and provided the Department increased flexibility in
    fiscal year 1999 to reprogram funds to meet any unfunded HLIP needs.
    This flexibility allowed the Department to reduce it's HLIP shortfall
    from a high of $16.2 million at the beginning of 1999 to $7.3 million
    at the time the Department forwarded its fiscal year 1999 supplemental
    request to the Office of Management and Budget. While cost estimates of
    the various sub-projects continue to change, overall, the total
    estimates of HLIP have not changed significantly. At the time the
    President's Budget was submitted, the cost estimates to implement BIA,
    OHA, and OST components of HLIP in 2000 was $65.3 million; and the 2001
    estimate was $34.1 million. The Department expects to have revised cost
    estimates when it updates HLIP this summer.
        Litigation costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time for a
    number of reasons. The retrospective portion of Cobell v. Babbitt is
    still in the discovery phase of the case, and the Department could have
    substantial additional costs to support this aspect of the litigation.
    The Department continues to face the possibility that the court could
    order an accounting for each individual Indian's trust fund account.
    The Department could also face additional litigation from tribes in the
    absence of tribal trust fund settlement legislation.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
        I am disturbed by Secretary Babbitt's January restructuring of the
    Office of Special Trustee. Specifically, I call into question the
    independence of the Office in the wake of the restructuring.
        In March, I sent a letter to the Secretary regarding your March 3,
    ``certification'' that the department's budget and reform plan would
    enable the Secretary to meet his trust responsibilities. But 8 months
    earlier you were very critical of the planned reforms and thought they
    were so bad you wrote ``I am grateful that I'm not responsible for
    implementing the plans.''
        Question. Are my fears about lack of independence confirmed by
    these events?
        Answer. No, these are unrelated actions. The July 1998 note to
    Special Trustee Paul Homan expressed concerns about the adequacy of
    project planning and efficacy of project approaches by BIA in support
    of the High Level Implementation Plan. The Department and Secretary
    acknowledged these problems and, the aggressive nature of BIA's
    schedule in approving the Plan, and committed to additional management
    oversight. The ``certification'' memorandum of March 1999 simply
    attests to the Department's requirement and need for $100 million in
    fiscal year 2000 to continue implementation of reforms contained in the
    High Level Implementation Plan necessary to enable the Secretary to
    meet trust responsibilities under the Reform Act. The memorandum
    clearly indicates the Acting Special Trustee's view that the Department
    is not yet in full compliance with the trust obligations as defined in
    the Reform Act.
        Language I proposed to the Supplemental Appropriations bill would
    suspend the implementation of the Secretarial Order restructuring the
    OST, but would allow reform efforts to proceed.
        Question. Why is the Department opposed to this provision?
        Answer. The Special Trustee's statutory responsibilities are
    outlined in the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act. The
    Secretarial Order in no way alters the Special Trustee's statutory
    authorities and responsibilities and is designed to strengthen the
    organization with the establishment of the Principal Deputy Special
    Trustee/Chief Operating Officer concept which places total
    responsibility for all operations, reforms, and other activities in a
    single position reporting directly to the Special Trustee who, in turn,
    continues to report to the Secretary.
        The proposed amendment may preclude the Department from
    implementing these planned improvements and may be contradictory to the
    intent of existing law. It could be construed to require the Department
    to:
      --Abolish the position of Principal Deputy Special Trustee;
      --Abolish the Office of Trust Litigation Support and Records; and
      --Restore the position of Deputy Special Trustee for Operations.
        Elimination of the Principal Deputy Special Trustee and return to
    the previous reporting relationship with the Office of Trust Funds
    Management would negatively impact day-to-day oversight of field
    operations. This organizational alignment, placing a principal deputy
    to manage day-to-day operations, is an approach that is used in nearly
    every other bureau and office in the Department. Additionally, given
    that many employees are involved in both day-to-day operations and
    implementation of the High-Level-Implementation Plan, abolishing the
    Principal Deputy Special Trustee would leave the organization with no
    single day-to-day manager in place who is held accountable for both
    trust reform and day-to-day operations. The Department is engaged in an
    aggressive reform effort and subject to significant workloads stemming
    from the Cobell v. Babbitt litigation. The absence of a single day-to-
    day accountable manager could seriously jeopardize the Department's
    ability to achieve trust management reform and also meet litigation
    demands.
        If the language is construed to eliminate the Office of Trust
    Litigation Support and Records Management it could have significant
    adverse impacts on the Department's ability to meet litigation demands
    and continue making progress in reform efforts. Trust records
    management and litigation support are areas of significant importance
    to the Department. The Office is charged with specific responsibilities
    that will permit it to concentrate on the monumental effort required to
    meet immediate litigation demands as well as effecting needed reform to
    Indian trust records management. Prior to the Secretarial Order, the
    office operated under an informal organization led by a Special
    Assistant to the Special Trustee, with staff detailed from the Office
    of Trust Funds Management. The Special Trustee had proposed
    establishment of a similar, larger office in 1998; establishment of the
    Office was deferred until more progress was made on an agreed upon
    records management approach. Continuation of this informal organization
    would blur lines of authority and responsibility, and hamper the
    ability of the Department to respond to litigation demands and achieve
    records management reforms.
        In May 1999 the Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget,
    Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs, and Acting Special Trustee agreed
    upon a joint records management plan, including a single office--the
    Office of Trust Litigation Support and Records Management being
    responsible for day-to-day records management operations of both BIA
    and OST, hiring, training and managing records officers, developing
    records management policies and procedures.
        We expect to receive a GAO report in the days ahead that is very
    skeptical of the High Level Implementation Plan. Specifically, it
    charges that the technology and systems chosen are not properly
    coordinated and will not do the job. We were originally told the Plan
    would cost $147 million from 1997 through 2000, with $60 million on
    improving management systems.
        Question. Have we seen the high-water mark in terms of requests to
    fix, once and for all, the trust funds problem at Interior?
        Answer. It is estimated that funds requested in fiscal year 2000 to
    address trust fund reform, including data clean-up and systems
    implementation are a peak level. While operational costs for the
    systems will be needed in the out-years, these costs will be less than
    the amounts needed in fiscal year 2000. However, fixing the trust
    problems goes far beyond just implementing new systems and data-
    cleanup. Trust funds problems are not fully resolved until two other
    significant issues are also addressed, compensating tribal and
    individual Indians for any deficiencies in past management of trust
    funds and Fractionation of Indian Lands. It is likely that these two
    additional requirements will also involve substantial costs.
        Question. Along with Senator Murkowski, I introduced a bill to
    allow tribes to use their discretion to pull their identifiable
    balances out of the Department and invest them in qualified banks to
    increase the rate of return on that money. As you work to clean up
    documents and determine accurate account balances, shouldn't tribes
    have this option?
        Answer. The Department strongly supports tribal withdrawal of trust
    funds pursuant to Title II of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
    Reform Act of 1994 (the Act). S. 739 is intended to meet similar
    objectives by providing opportunities for tribes to have their trust
    funds managed by banks in order to receive increased rates of return.
    However, the Department strongly opposes the mechanism proposed in S.
    739 to achieve this objective, as the Secretary would maintain
    significant responsibilities for monitoring and oversight of funds that
    would no longer be in the Secretary's control. The Department believes
    S. 739 is counter to principles of self-determination.
                                     ______

               Question Submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
                     school construction bonding initiative
        You are requesting $30 million as seed money for a bonding
    initiative to assist tribes in building new schools. The BIA has been
    included as a very small part of the Administration's fiscal year 2000
    School Modernization Initiative, which seeks the renovation of public
    schools throughout the U.S. by providing Federal tax credits in lieu of
    interest payments to those investing in school bonds. For the BIA
    schools, the Administration proposes that Congress give the Tribes
    authority to issue up to $200 million in bonds in each of the next two
    years, a total of $400 million, for the repair or replacement of
    Bureau-funded schools in their communities.
        Question. Did the Bureau actively participate in formulating the
    bonding initiative? Were the Tribes consulted, and what do they think?
        Answer. The Bureau held several meetings with the Departments of
    Education and Treasury concerning steps that would be necessary in
    implementing the bill. Treasury staff outlined the eneral process that
    would be followed in implementing this legislation. The Department and
    the Bureau will continue to consult with these agencies and outside
    experts in this field. As a part of BIA's preparing to implement this
    proposal, a Five-Year Education Deferred Maintenance and Construction
    Plan and School Replacement Guidelines have been developed. A
    prioritized list of replacement schools projects will be completed in
    September, 1999, and the new list can be added to what remains of the
    fiscal year 1993 list of the highest priority 16 schools that needed
    replacement.
        The Tribes did not participate directly in the initial discussions
    on the Bonding Initiative. They have shared their views with the Bureau
    since its introduction ranging from those that were in favor of the
    Initiative to others that were concerned about an equitable
    distribution in the allocation of the bonding authority between Tribes.
        This initiative requires the passage of legislation that is the
    jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
        Question. What's the status of the legislation?
        Answer. Senate Bill 223 was introduced in the Senate on January 19,
    1999, and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. The
    Bureau is not aware of companion legislation in the House, to date,
    however, it is anticipated soon.
        As of six weeks ago when staff were briefed on the Initiative, the
    Bureau had not determined specifically how this Initiative would work
    with the Tribes.
        Question. What do you think about the initiative?
        Answer. The Bureau favors the Bonding Initiative as it would
    increase the funding authority available for addressing the huge
    backlog of priority health and safety deficiencies in Bureau-funded
    school facilities.
        The Initiative would allow a creative solution to addressing the
    educational backlog of facilities needs by leveraging private capital.
    The initiative anticipates the investment of the community into bonds
    that would finance the construction of schools.
        Question. Given the poverty in much of the Dakotas and in other
    parts of Indian Country, who is going to invest in these bonds?
        Answer. Investors would be affluent individuals, companies, or
    foundations, primarily non-Indians, who acquire the bonds to receive
    benefit of tax credits. With the payment of the principal guaranteed by
    a fund set aside for that purpose and tax credits in lieu of interest
    payments, the Bureau believes the bonds will be attractive to many
    investors. Thus, the Bureau will not be looking to needy communities to
    invest in these bonds.
        The Administration proposes that we put $30 million in escrow in
    fiscal year 2000 to assist the Tribes in paying off the $200 million in
    bond principal. The BIA would then seek another $30 million in fiscal
    year 2001 for the second $200 million worth of bond principal. The BIA
    estimates that if it is provided $30 million for fiscal year 2000, $72
    million would be available for principal repayments in 15 years. Growth
    is based on the assumptions of 6 percent annual interest rate; 15 year
    life of the bond; and monthly compounded interest.
        If $72 million will be available to repay $200 million in bonding
    authority, $128 million of bonding authority will remain.
        Question. The BIA's briefing materials state that the remaining
    authority would be available to ``Tribes able to secure principal
    through other sources.'' What does that mean? How will it be determined
    how the $72 million in bonding authority is allocated among Tribes?
        Answer. The Bureau's $30 million proposal in its budget for fiscal
    year 2000 will grow to an estimated $75 million over a 15-year period
    at 6 percent interest, thus leaving roughly $125 million of bonding
    authority still available in fiscal year 2000. This estimated $125
    million in remaining bonding authority will allow those Tribes not
    allocated a portion of the Bureau's $30 million program to use the
    remaining authority to pursue other creative solutions to addressing
    school construction needs, such as partnering or cost sharing.
        With regards to allocation of the bonding authority, schools with
    critical health and safety needs are the Bureau's priority. The Bureau
    will continue to use what remains of the list of 16 Replacement Schools
    established by the Congress in fiscal year 1993. Additional schools
    will be added to the list of sixteen after being identified through a
    priority ranking process to be completed by September, 1999. Facilities
    Improvement and Repair Projects that may be eligible will continue to
    be ranked based on their code and standard deficiencies.
        Question. Has BIA determined who will determine which Tribes are
    eligible for ``assistance'' in paying off the bond principal? Will any
    Tribes be declared ineligible because they can afford to pay the
    principal completely from other sources?
        Answer. No determinations have been made as to which Tribes will
    participate in the Bonding Initiative program. The Bureau will first
    use the new authority to complete what remains of the list of 16
    replacement schools established by the Congress in fiscal year 1993.
    Additional schools will be added to this list after being identified
    through a priority ranking process to be completed by September, 1999.
    Facilities Improvement and Repair Projects that may be eligible will
    continue to be ranked based on their code and standard deficiencies.
        Question. Will the Tribes be allowed to replace any BIA schools on
    their reservations, or will they be confined to replacing only the
    oldest schools? What are the criteria for a school to be eligible?
        Answer. Tribes selected to participate in the Bonding Initiative
    program will be selected based on their proposals to replace schools
    that meet the Bureau's priority of replacing schools with critical
    health and safety needs. The Bureau will first focus on replacing the
    remaining schools on the list of 16 replacement schools established by
    the Congress in fiscal year 1993; additional Bureau-operated and funded
    elementary and secondary schools will be added to this list after being
    identified through a priority ranking process to be completed by
    September, 1999. Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R) Projects that
    may be eligible will continue to be ranked based on their code and
    standard deficiencies.
        The Bureau's budget justifications state that the ``Secretary would
    have the discretion to select which bond proposals would be eligible to
    receive funding from the $30 million.''
        Question. On what would the Secretary rely to select proposals that
    are eligible for assistance?
        Answer. As stated previously, a school would have to be one of the
    185 schools operated or funded by the Bureau and would have to be on
    Bureau established Replacement School or FI&R list. The Tribe would
    have to apply for bonding authority and be approved by the Bureau. The
    school's proposal would be evaluated based on its ranking on the
    replacement or FI&R lists.
        The Department of the Interior does not have the authority to
    invest the $30 million the Bureau is requesting. According to those who
    briefed staff, the funds would be allocated to the Tribes for them to
    invest.
        Question. Which office will have oversight responsibility to assure
    bondholders that they will get their principal in 15 years? Will there
    be limitations on where Tribes' escrow can be invested? Will these
    investments be government-backed?
        Answer. As sovereign nations the Tribes have the oversight
    responsibility to assure bondholders of return of the principal in 15
    years.
        While there are currently no restrictions on where the Tribes'
    escrow can be invested, the Administration has recommended an amendment
    to the Internal Revenue Code to provide for restrictions to the kinds
    of sinking funds that can be used to fund school construction. The
    Treasury Department has already recommended that the bond issues be
    invested in Federal securities or in State and Local Government
    Securities (SLGS). These investments are government-backed.
        Question. What will the Federal government's liability be to
    bondholders on the principal?
        Answer. The Federal Government will have no liability, except to
    establish guidelines that assure that Tribes invest in only certain
    security instruments and to monitor Tribal investments.
                         school improvement and repair
        This Committee has provided significant increases for school
    improvements and repairs over the last several years because repair and
    maintenance are critical to getting the BIA schools out of the cycle of
    dilapidation and replacement. We provided increases of $8 million in
    both fiscal years 1998 and 1999, taking funding from $24 million to $40
    million in two years.
        Nevertheless, the backlog appears to be growing. The estimate in
    1998 was $695 million and now stands at $743 million.
        Given the growing backlog, it would make sense to me to increase
    funding for School Facilities Improvement and Repair. But the funding
    request is $4 million lower for this program for fiscal year 2000, $36
    million rather than the $40 million we provided last year.
        Question. Why has the Bureau requested fewer funds for school
    repairs for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 request for education
    construction funding is the highest since 1992. Quite often, replacing
    a school is a more cost effective measure than Facilities Improvement &
    Repair (FI&R). The replacement of the Seba Dalkai and Fond du Lac
    schools will produce a reduction in the maintenance backlog, because
    those costs are foregone by replacement.
        Also, the $30 million requested in the President's Budget for the
    bonding initiative would result in a significant reduction in the
    maintenance backlog overall. Current budgetary limitations on
    appropriations preclude a major infusion of funds due to the existing
    and competing overwhelming needs and requirements on a Bureau-wide
    basis. Ideally, if new construction is possible to reduce the backlog,
    it will have a corresponding reduction on FI&R needs.
        Last year, when we realized we would not be able to fully fund all
    of the requested increases for programs, you and I worked together to
    focus on education and law enforcement programs. I am still committed
    to those program areas. We still have much to accomplish.
                              chief leschi school
        Question. What is the status of the various investigations at Chief
    Leschi School? I understand that a whistle blower at the school alleged
    that the school received about $1.5 million more than it should have
    for bus transportation miles that were claimed but were not accurate. I
    understand that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office began an
    investigation in early 1998 and that this past January the BIA and U.S.
    Attorney met with the Puyallup Tribe.
        Answer. According to the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for
    Investigations, this case remains under active investigation. The OIG
    has requested that the Committee direct specifics concerning the case
    to their office.
        Question. How much do you think the school owes the government?
    Does the BIA intend to recover misappropriated funds? When?
        Answer. The School owes the Federal Government in excess of $4
    million, which includes interest. Because of the ongoing investigation,
    the Bureau has been requested to delay collection actions by the U.S.
    Attorney. The recovery of these funds will be coordinated with the
    Offices of Inspector General, the Solicitor, and the U.S. Attorney. At
    this time, the Bureau cannot state with certainty what amount may be
    recovered.
        I also understand that, as a result of the transportation funding
    controversy, BIA conducted a review of Chief Leschi's programs.
        Question. What are the results of that review?
        Answer. The Bureau's Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP)
    conducted a program review of the Chief Leschi School. The review
    included school administration, school operations, Indian School
    Equalization Programs, and consolidated school reform plan. The
    significant findings of the OIEP review included:
        1. Budget.--There was no record that the school year 1998-1999
    budget had been submitted for approval to the School Board. Since
    converting to grant status, the School has operated under one grant
    agreement with annual amendments, which make reconciliations difficult.
        2. Procurement.--Procurement procedures and forms need updating.
    Purchase orders contained only vague descriptions of items to be
    bought.
        3. Construction.--The School, without Bureau approval, used ISEP
    funds in excess of $2.0 million to construct the School's auditorium.
        4. Administrative Cost Grant.--The School was overpaid $546,400 in
    administrative grant funds for the school years 1993-1994 through 1997-
    1998 because of the overpayment of the transportation funds.
        5. Personnel.--Despite a School policy that work days be limited to
    7 hours, 179 employees worked and were paid for 8-hour days.
        6. Pay Scale.--The School has used several pay scales the last two
    school years that were not equitable or based on experience and
    qualifications. The School has not provided retirement benefits to
    staff for the past 3 years, which has been cited by some staff as the
    reason for leaving.
        7. School Board.--The School Board has not provided adequate
    oversight and direction for the operation of the School.
        8. School Operation.--There appears to be a loss of focus on the
    objective of providing quality education for Indian children which has
    resulted in increased problems with discipline, violence, and drugs.
    School enrollment has declined. Some staff members question the quality
    and level of expectation of the School's curriculum and the textbooks
    and material. There is no approved organization chart. Supervisory
    responsibilities and chain of commands are not identified clearly.
        9. Indian School Equalization Program.--Record keeping in this area
    was good. The School counted 639 students in grades K through 12 during
    count week; all but 11 student records had the required documentation.
        10. Consolidated School Reform Plan.--Implementation of the plan
    has been sporadic and inconsistent. Despite extensive revisions over
    the past two years, implementation plans were set aside this year. The
    revised plan has not been distributed widely or discussed with the
    staff.
        Question. What academic standards must Chief Leschi meet?
        Answer. The Chief Leschi School must meet either regional
    accrediting standards or State standards. The school is currently
    accredited by the State of Washington.
        Congress provided $27 million for design and construction of the
    Chief Leschi School. Despite having been told that before funds were
    expended and work was done, the Tribe's construction contracts exceeded
    the amount available by about $2 million.
        Question. What is the status of that situation?
        Answer. The School's single audit reports and the Department's
    Office of Inspector General identified total construction expenditures
    of $31,873,131. This includes construction, furnishings, and interest.
    The September 24, 1998, financial report submitted by the School listed
    the total Federal share of expenditures through September as
    $28,845,942. The Bureau has paid $25,822,182 for the construction of
    the School. The Bureau has required the School to contract with a CPA
    firm to review the construction billings to determine the actual cost
    of construction and the Federal share, based upon the scope of work
    approved by the Bureau.
        Sadly, as a result of these investigations, some parents have
    pulled their children out of the school, and enrollment has declined in
    the last year from 758 students to 639 students. I regret that parents
    have had to do it, and yet I understand why they would do it. I fully
    support the complete investigation of these problems. You can count on
    my support.
        Question. Finally, could the BIA please explain the per student
    funding allocation at Chief Leschi School. Specifically, is the school
    claiming both a per pupil BIA allocation and a per pupil Washington
    allocation for every Washington resident student? As I understand it,
    all of Chief Leschi's students are Washington residents and most are
    Native Americans. Is this double-dipping? Is that typical of BIA
    schools?
        Answer. The Chief Leschi School System (School System) and the
    Puyallup School District have entered into a local agreement. This
    agreement provides that Indian students within the public school's
    boundaries are to be counted for funding purposes by the public school
    district. The school district receives State education funds for these
    students. A portion of these funds are kept by the public school for
    administrative purposes with the remainder going to the School System.
    The School System did enroll the students and provide the basic
    academic program. The State deems this to be a legal arrangement under
    State law. The School System is reviewing the local agreement to decide
    if it will be continued in the future. This is not a typical
    arrangement for other Bureau schools.
                     unlawful investments by grant schools
        In December 1998, the Inspector General submitted to Congress its
    Final Report on ``Investments and Deposits of Grant Funds by Schools
    Operated by Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations''. The objective of
    the survey was to determine whether schools invested BIA grant funds in
    accordance with law.
        The IG found that at least 18 of the 41 schools reviewed did not
    invest Bureau grant funds in accordance with the law requiring that
    grant funds be invested only in obligations of the United States or in
    obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by the United
    States.
        At least three schools lost grant funds of about $691 thousand that
    were invested in obligations, securities, and accounts which were not
    adequately insured or guaranteed.
        Question. What is being done to recover those funds?
        Answer. The Bureau does not have the authority to recover the
    funds. Certain provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended), which are
    incorporated into the Tribally Controlled Grant School Act, bar the
    Bureau from disallowing grant expenditures identified in Single Audits
    unless notice has been given within one year of receipt of the school's
    Single Audit report.
        The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) relied on the Single
    Audit reports for its audit. All of the audits in question had been
    submitted to the OIG more than one year prior to the date of the OIG
    report. On October 8, 1998, the Bureau requested an opinion from the
    Office of the Solicitor (SOL) based on the following scenarios:
        ``If a Single Audit Report accurately identifies inappropriate
    charges to or conditions concerning Bureau awards but does not
    specifically question the charges or identify a reportable condition,
    does the issuance of a subsequent audit report by OIG/GAO that
    identifies the same inappropriate charge serve as a basis for the
    Bureau to initiate collection action?''
        ``If a Single Audit Report which was accepted by the OIG contains
    insufficient information, and subsequent OIG/GAO analysis questions
    costs in a later audit report, may BIA initiate collection action?''
        In a March 16, 1999, response to this request, the SOL's response
    was that neither of the situations described above would serve as a
    basis for the Bureau to initiate collection actions.
        Question. When recovered, will these funds be available for other
    education programs?
        Answer. Any recovery of disallowed costs is credited to the
    appropriation account that was originally charged with the obligation
    and the availability of funds is governed by the availability of the
    original appropriation. Thus, recovery of funds charged to a no-year
    account would be available for future obligation. The appropriations
    for school operations are available for obligation from July 1 of one
    fiscal year through September 30 of the subsequent fiscal year. So, for
    example, funds available for obligation on July 1, 1997, would have to
    be repaid prior to September 30, 1998, in order to be available for
    obligation. Since the Grant School legislation only requires that
    schools submit audits every other year, it is highly unlikely that any
    funds would ever be recovered within the timeframe allowed for re-
    obligation of available funds.
        Question. Given the IG Report that almost half of the schools
    surveyed did not know the law or were not following the law, what is
    the Bureau doing to address the problem?
        Answer. When the Bureau received the draft IG report, the Director,
    Office of Indian Education Programs, contacted each of the Education
    Line Officers who award grants and instructed them to include in the
    grant award the specific restrictions contained in statute governing
    the investment of grant funds. The restrictions are now contained in
    all grants to schools.
        Question. Could this situation--investment in uninsured
    securities--be repeated in the proposed construction bond program?
        Answer. No, the terms of the school bonding initiative reiterate
    this policy that limit the funds being invested to only specific
    Government securities.
        Question. Do you think misinvesting is a widespread problem, or a
    case of ``a few bad apples?''
        Answer. The failure to maintain advanced Federal funds in accounts
    fully covered by depository insurance or collateral is fairly wide
    spread among grant schools, self determination Tribal contractors and
    self governance compact Tribes. In an effort to improve compliance with
    the law, the Bureau has included special audit testing requirements in
    the Single Audit Compliance Supplement which is issued by the Office of
    Management and Budget. Unfortunately, the Bureau learns of these
    improper investments only long after the time when Single Audits are
    submitted. Moreover, some Tribes and school boards maintain that the
    Bureau has no authority to limit investments and even that it cannot
    sanction failures to comply with the Single Audit Act. In its efforts
    to reduce Bureau interference in the affairs of the Tribes and school
    boards, the Congress has deprived the Bureau of the ability to oversee
    vigorously the use of appropriated funds.
                                law enforcement
        The per capita rate of violent crime involving Indian victims is
    estimated to be more than twice as high as the national average.
    Arrests of Indians for alcohol- related offenses in 1996 were also more
    than double the national average. These statistics are devastating.
        In response, Congress provided $95.3 million for law enforcement in
    Indian country in fiscal year 1999, a $20 million increase over fiscal
    year 1998. These funds are part of a joint effort Congress is funding
    through the Department of Justice to improve law enforcement in Indian
    Country.
        Question. To what degree is the Department of Justice involved in
    the initiative in Indian Country? How is the distribution of funding
    among reservations determined?
        Answer. Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau continue to
    combine efforts in combating the rising crime rate in Indian Country.
    The Bureau continues to concentrate on providing direct permanent
    resources to both Bureau and Tribal programs, while the Department of
    Justice (DOJ) continues to concentrate on providing grants to Tribes.
    In FY1999, DOJ appropriations total $88.7 million for Indian Country
    criminal justice programs; included in this level is $34.0 million for
    construction of new detention facilities. In the past three years, DOJ
    has provided $68.0 million to Tribes to hire additional police officers
    through its COPS program. Since the Bureau is not eligible for DOJ
    grant funds, the Bureau has concentrated on providing resources to
    those programs still operated by the Bureau.
        While the $20 million in new funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999
    to the Bureau is very helpful, it only allows the Bureau to begin
    addressing the most basic of identified needs. Therefore, Bureau funds
    were made available to existing Tribal 638 contracts, Tribal self-
    governance compacts and to Bureau-operated law enforcement programs on
    a ``neediest of the needy'' basis. Some criteria for determining need
    included: population, land base, crime statistics, current levels of
    funding and staffing, and equipment. No fiscal year 1999 Initiative
    funds were used to start up new law enforcement programs; instead, with
    the need so great, the Bureau focused on improving existing law
    enforcement programs.
        Question. How much of the law enforcement services are the Tribes
    providing through contracting?
        Answer. There are 203 law enforcement programs in Indian Country
    operated by the Bureau, Tribal 638 contracts, and Tribal self
    governance compacts. Of this total, at least 13 Tribes fund their own
    law enforcement programs and 93 law enforcement programs are contracted
    through Public Law 93-638, as amended.
        Question. Are the Tribes getting any direct funding from the
    Department of Justice's programs?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, DOJ was appropriated $88.7 million for
    Indian Country criminal justice grant programs. Prior to fiscal year
    1999, DOJ provided $68.0 million to Tribes to hire additional police
    officers under its grants programs, such as COPS. DOJ continues to
    concentrate on providing direct grants to Tribes to fund police officer
    positions along with related police equipment through its COPS grant
    program.
        The Ramah Navajo case is evidence that other agencies, including
    the Department of Justice, refuse to pay their share of contract
    support to the Tribes. This has come back to haunt the Bureau, which
    has been held liable for the contract support of other Federal
    agencies. I understand that some Tribes are unable to participate in
    the ``COPS'' program because Justice refuses to pay contract support.
        Question. What are your recommendations regarding the failure of
    agencies to pay their share of contract support?
        Answer. The Bureau cannot meet its own contract support obligation,
    much less those of other agencies, within the current budgetary
    constraints. We believe other Federal agencies should pay their own
    contract support costs to the Tribes. Tribes have expressed their
    positions that participation in DOJ's COPS program was limited, not
    because of the lack of contract support, but because they could not
    guarantee retention of COPS-funded police officer positions after the
    grant period expired or the availability of funds to properly outfit
    the officer. A number of Tribes also advised the Bureau they could not
    meet the matching funds requirement for DOJ grants and therefore did
    not apply for the grants.
        For fiscal year 2000, the Bureau is requesting another $20 million
    increase for law enforcement. Of that amount, roughly $12 million is
    for personnel: new uniformed officers, dispatchers, investigators and
    detention personnel. The request includes $2.5 million for replacement
    of police vehicles.
        Question. How many more years of substantial increases in law
    enforcement do you anticipate? Will the Administration continue to keep
    this a priority beyond the initiative?
        Answer. The Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian
    Country is a four-year initiative. At the end of the four-year
    Initiative, if funding is increased each year, both the Bureau and DOJ
    will have addressed the core law enforcement issues in Indian Country.
    While the Administration will leave office before the Initiative is
    concluded, we hope our successors will continue to support law
    enforcement as a priority program.
                                contract support
        You are requesting $22.8 million in program increases for TPA. Half
    the increase, $11 million, is for new and existing contracting. Last
    year, we struggled with the problems of contract support and imposed a
    one-year moratorium on new and expanded BIA and IHS contracts.
        Last year Congress provided an $8 million increase for contract
    support to close the gap between the obligation and the discretionary
    funding available. With the increased funding, the Bureau is able to
    pay about 83 percent of contract support in fiscal year 1999.
        You're requesting a $6 million increase this year.
        Question. Will this increase cover contract support at 100 percent
    of your obligation? If not, what can you tell us about the one-year
    shortfall you would have, and what's the status of the total multi-year
    shortfall in contract support?
        Answer. The Bureau estimates that the fiscal year 2000 request
    level will allow the Bureau to meet approximately 84 percent of Tribes'
    contract support fund need in fiscal year 2000, with an estimated
    shortfall of $23.3 million.
        On December 4, 1997, the Department of the Interior Board of
    Contract Appeals issued its decision in Alamo Navajo School Board Inc.
    and Miccosukee Corporation v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.
    The Board held that the Miccosukee Corporation was entitled to full
    funding of contract support costs, notwithstanding an appropriations
    cap, under the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act.
    The United States filed an appeal of the Board's decision with the U.
    S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 26, 1998. The
    appellees recently filed briefs with the Court and all parties are
    awaiting further instructions from the Court.
        Because of the growing shortfall and the lawsuits that have been
    filed on the unmet obligations, we imposed a moratorium last year on
    new and expanded contracts. This year, you are asking us to lift the
    moratorium and provide $5 million for new contracts.
        Question. When you know you aren't asking for enough to pay
    contract support for existing contracts, and this shortfall subjects
    the government to liability, why are you asking Congress to lift the
    moratorium?
        Answer. The moratorium on contracting Bureau programs did not and
    will not address the real problem, which is full funding for existing
    ongoing contractors. The Indian Self Determination (ISD) Fund has fully
    funded the contract support needs of new Tribal contractors. As the
    Bureau pointed out during the Congressional appropriations process last
    year, new and expanded contracting is not the problem. The Bureau
    distributes the ISD Fund on a first-come, first-serve basis. Once the
    funds have been completely distributed, contracting Tribes must wait
    until the next available appropriations before they receive Contract
    Support Funds (CSF). In addition, the $5 million request for the ISD
    Fund has historically been sufficient to meet the total requests for
    new contracting. The Bureau also proposed in its previous budget
    request to transfer the ISD monies to the main CSF to assist in
    covering the new contractors from the previous year.
        At the request of the Bureau, we have placed a cap on the amount of
    BIA funding available for the payment of contract support since 1994.
    Without the cap, the Bureau would have had to reprogram funds away from
    Tribes that have chosen to continue to receive services directly from
    the Bureau. Now, there are several lawsuits pending related to contract
    support. The Bureau has reached a partial settlement in the Ramah
    Navajo case for $76.2 million. That settlement covers contract support
    claims through 1993, when we first implemented a cap on contract
    support.
        Question. What's the status of this settlement?
        Answer. On May 14, 1999, the District Court for the District of New
    Mexico entered Partial Final Judgement in favor of the class for a
    total of $79,903,529 inclusive of pre-judgement interest and attorney
    fees but exclusive of post judgment interest. The Partial Settlement
    represents damages for indirect costs for the years 1989 to 1993. The
    Judgement Fund is to pay, but certain issues (like whether the
    Department will have to reimburse the Judgement with its operation
    funds) is not ripe and the Court retained jurisdiction to hear the
    issues if and when they arise.
        The Court awarded attorney fees in the sum of 11 percent of the
    Gross Common fund (which equals $8,338,000), plus 11 percent of the
    post judgement interest earned on the Common Fund. The Court also
    awarded $170,036.37 for costs.
        Claims still pending are years 1994 to present (years in which
    there was an appropriation cap on contract support costs) and an
    equitable claim for how the Department determines indirect cost rates
    in the future.
        The settlement of Ramah will be paid initially out of the Judgment
    Fund. The Contract Disputes Act, which is the law used by the
    plaintiffs in their suit, requires repayment by the BIA. Briefing
    materials from the BIA budget office state that ``the actual
    responsibility for reimbursement is still under discussion.''
        Question. What is the status of a determination of the Bureau's
    source of reimbursement?
        Answer. The settlement of Ramah will be paid initially out of the
    Judgment Fund within the Department of Justice. The Contract Disputes
    Act, which is the law cited by the plaintiffs in their suit, requires
    repayment by the Bureau. The actual responsibility and plan for
    reimbursement is still under discussion, but the Bureau may have little
    choice except to cover the repayment from appropriations, thus
    adversely impacting Tribal and Bureau programs.
        Question. What is the status of litigation regarding the
    sufficiency of the cap language the Bureau has had for the last six
    years?
        Answer. On December 4, 1997, the Department of the Interior Board
    of Contract Appeals issued its decision in Alamo Navajo School Board
    Inc. and Miccosukee Corporation v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
    Interior. The Board held that Miccosukee Corporation was entitled to
    full funding of contract support costs, notwithstanding an
    appropriations cap, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act. The United States filed an appeal of the Board's
    decision with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on
    October 26, 1998. The Bureau understands that the appellees have very
    recently filed briefs with the Court and all parties are waiting
    further instructions from the Court.
        Currently, the Indian Self-Determination Act is inflexible. The
    Secretary has no discretion to decline to enter into a contract--even
    if no funding exists to cover the costs of the contractual obligation.
        Question. Would the Administration support an amendment to the
    Indian Self- Determination Act resolving the contract support shortfall
    by giving the Secretary discretion to refuse to enter into contracts
    when insufficient annual funding is available?
        Answer. No, as denoted in a previous response, new contracts are
    not a problem when Congress grants the Bureau's request for the ISD
    Fund. However, if the Committee is referring to terminating contracts
    with existing Tribal contractors in order to meet 100 percent of the
    Contract Support Fund (CSF) need, the Bureau would be put in a very
    difficult predicament. The Bureau distributes CSF for existing
    contractors based on Congressional direction requiring equitable
    distribution of the available funds on a pro rata basis. Should the law
    be amended to take such action, existing regulations would have to be
    modified and difficult decisions would have to be made as to which
    Tribal contracts would remain in place and receive CSF funds. Efforts
    in the past to modify the regulations in response to the 1994
    amendments to the 638 law took 18 months and an estimated $500,000 in
    Bureau funds to complete the process. These kinds of resources are not
    available within the Bureau's limited budget. The more appropriate
    response is to continue allowing the Tribes to contract in their
    discretion. The Tribes are aware of the shortage in funding, and take
    on these obligations understanding the problem. The Congress should
    continue to make clear, however, that the Bureau will not be liable for
    payment of contract support beyond the amount appropriated for that
    purpose.
        If the moratorium is lifted, according to budget justifications,
    the BIA expects about 50 new or expanded contracts in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. What are the Bureau's estimates on the saturation point--
    when will all the interested Tribes have taken everything they're
    interested in? Do you have estimates on the final, total contract
    support costs?
        Answer. During the hearing, the Bureau provided testimony that
    addressed the number of new Tribal contracts/compacts which may be
    awarded within the next five years. Based on a recent polling of the
    Tribes and Bureau locations addressing historical trends, the Bureau
    believes that Tribal contracting and compacting of Bureau programs may
    be leveling off due chiefly to the level of appropriations available in
    the Bureau's budget. The Indian Self Determination and Education
    Assistance Act authorizes Tribes, not the Bureau, to determine whether
    and when to enter into new contracts. Therefore, the Bureau cannot
    predict with any certainty what new contracts/compacts will be awarded
    and to the amount of CSF required for such contracts/compacts. The
    Bureau believes the majority of Tribes interested in contracting and
    compacting are now doing so based on the level of appropriations
    available in the Bureau's budget. Any increases in the contracting
    level will result from Tribes adding to their contracting/compacting
    volume and/or contracting by newly recognized Tribes. For fiscal year
    2000, the projected CSF requirements totals approximately $145 million.
        When a tribe takes over all programs and services, it enters into a
    compact that results in, for lack of a better term, a block grant to
    the tribe. As part of that block grant process, the tribes have been
    successful in negotiating for funds equal to a percentage of a Bureau
    employee, even though, in reality, significant numbers of employees
    must remain to provide services to the tribes, usually the less
    sophisticated, poorer tribes, which are not contracting with the BIA.
        Question. What kinds of discussions are going on in the Bureau or
    in Indian Country related to the fact that, in contracting, the winners
    tend to be those Tribes that got ``in the door first,'' and are the
    more sophisticated Tribes; and the losers are, again, the Tribes that
    truly rely on the Bureau for services?
        Answer. Following the directives contained in the fiscal year 1998
    Conference Report on Bureau appropriations, the Assistant Secretary--
    Indian Affairs established a joint Bureau/Tribal Task Force to review
    and determine a distribution method for allocation of available Tribal
    Priority Allocation (TPA) funding for fiscal year 1998. This initial
    workgroup evolved into a separate workgroup, the BIA/Tribal Workgroup
    on Tribal Assessment, to focus on the development of accurate and
    meaningful data to address funding inequities, unmet Tribal needs, and
    funding shortfalls. This effort is currently being finalized, thus
    results are not yet available. Once completed, the report will be
    submitted to the Committees.
        Question. You have established a Bureau/Tribal Workgroup on
    Contract Support Costs in conjunction with the National Congress of
    American Indians. What is the status of this workgroup? When will we
    receive its recommends? Can you share any of the ideas with us today?
        Answer. The Workgroup is currently finalizing two reports on the
    issue for submission to the Congress. One report will focus on the
    position of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and a
    second will reflect the Bureau's recommendations through its efforts
    with the Workgroup. The Bureau's report is expected to be sent to the
    Committees by mid-summer. Several significant concerns will be
    addressed in both reports that have been a matter of contention for
    years, including such issues as the payment of direct contract support
    costs, establishment of each Tribe's contract support requirement, and
    the current pro rata distribution.
        BIA distributes contract support on a pro rata basis, so that any
    shortfall in funds is spread evenly over all contracting Tribes. The
    IHS chose to fully fund the oldest contracts and puts the rest of the
    contracts into a ``queue'' where they remain unfunded until increases
    are obtained. I agree with the Bureau's pro-ratadistribution method.
        Question. Is this pro rata method up for discussion or change under
    any of the findings and efforts of the contract support cost workgroup?
        Answer. The issue of the current pro rata method was one of the
    topics considered by the joint Workgroup. While the final report of the
    Bureau has yet to be finalized and submitted, the Bureau's report will
    not recommend a change in the pro rata distribution method.
                            water rights litigation
        The Administration is requesting a $4 million increase for water
    rights litigation and negotiations. This is a fairly significant
    increase over the $11 million we provided last year.
        Question. Can you tell us what the Bureau has been accomplishing
    with funding in this account, and tell us about the status of efforts
    in water rights negotiations around the country?
        Answer. Adequate water rights negotiation and litigation funding is
    critical to carrying out the United States' core trust responsibility
    of protecting Indian water resources. Negotiation and litigation
    funding is used to conduct various evidentiary studies necessary to
    support the United States' claims to water on behalf of Tribes. Failure
    to adequately prepare and support such claims may subject the United
    States to actions for breach of trust. Furthermore, in many instances,
    water rights litigation is initiated by states or individual non-Indian
    water users; the United States is named as a defendant in such cases
    and the only alternatives are litigation or negotiation. If funds are
    not made available for negotiating settlements, they will have to be
    expended in typically costly litigation, which often extends over
    decades. While both litigation and negotiation have attendant costs,
    the benefit of a settlement is that the needs of both Indians and non-
    Indians can be met. Conversely, in litigation, there may be no
    mechanism by which the needs of the ``losing'' party can be met. The
    Department believes that workable solutions secured through negotiation
    rather than litigation serve the best interests of both Indian and non-
    Indian citizens alike, and that funding this effort is well worth the
    investment.
        Specifically, funding from the Water Rights Litigation and
    Negotiations account is used to support the ongoing efforts of 18 water
    rights claims negotiation teams, as well as 15 settlement
    implementation teams, in California, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon,
    Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah and New Mexico. For each
    unique Indian water rights claim where the state and non-Indian parties
    have formally indicated their willingness to work toward settlement, a
    Federal negotiating team with representatives from the various involved
    Federal agencies has been established. Each Federal team, working with
    the other parties, attempts to reach a negotiated settlement that will
    to the maximum extent possible prevent disruption of existing water
    uses while simultaneously preserving future Tribal water use and
    development. The Department is mindful of the fact that $4 million is a
    significant increase relative to the $11 million appropriated in fiscal
    year 1999, but it is noted that the President's budget requests over
    the past 6 years have averaged $15.2 million, and demand among the
    Bureau's stakeholders for that funding has averaged $23.7 million.
        Additionally, the Department views this increase in funding as
    critical because it is prudent to address Indian water rights claims
    sooner rather than later. The Department's experience has shown that
    delay in addressing Indian claims ultimately leads to significantly
    increased costs to the United States in the future. In part, this is
    because non-Indian parties increasingly use more and more water in
    systems in which Tribal rights have not been quantified and/or
    implemented, and as they do so, they come to rely on using water that
    may actually belong to a Tribe. As long as residential and commercial
    dependence on such Tribal water exists and grows, it is impractical to
    assert a Tribe's valid claim to the water, and thus more and more
    difficult to resolve competing claims. In sum, the longer non-Indian
    dependence persists and expands over time, and as water becomes more
    scarce, the more costly settlements are likely to be.
        Question. Are we nearing the end of water rights disputes with the
    Tribes?
        Answer. The Department is involved in negotiations in most of the
    major general stream adjudications across the West. At present, there
    are 18 active water rights claims negotiation teams in 10 states. While
    the Department is hopeful that these negotiations will result in
    successful settlements, it is difficult if not impossible to predict
    the timeline that these complicated undertakings will follow. Whereas a
    handful of these claims may be ripe for settlement within the next 18
    months, others, though they may be ardently pursued, may require
    several years or more before they approach a final settlement.
        In addition, the Department cannot reliably anticipate when states
    or individuals may initiate new general stream adjudications or other
    water related litigation. There are hundreds of Tribes in the West that
    may have valid claims which have not yet been asserted for any number
    of reasons. However, as the population in the West grows and as cities
    and their attendant development expand, it is very likely that more
    Tribal water claims will surface. It is therefore difficult to assess
    when disputes over Tribal water rights may reach an end, but it would
    be misleading to say the end is near.
                            environmental management
        The Administration is requesting $9.8 million for environmental
    management, compared to $3 million provided for fiscal year 1999. The
    budget justifications state only that the Department ordered the BIA to
    develop the program and conduct assessments of all Bureau facilities by
    2002.
        Question. Can you be more specific about what this funding is for?
        Answer. Prior to fiscal year 1999, the Bureau was annually
    appropriated approximately $3.7 million under a program element
    entitled Waste Management. In fiscal year 1999, the Bureau was
    appropriated $6.7 million for its environmental programs: $3.7 million
    under the Waste Management line item and an additional $3 million under
    a new program element entitled Environmental Cleanup. For fiscal year
    2000, the Bureau decided to combine those two program elements into
    one, entitled Environmental Management, to more accurately reflect the
    Bureau's vast array of environmental expenses--some of which do not
    neatly fall under the ``waste management'' or ``environmental clean-
    up''. This reflects the Bureau's commitment to aggressively managing
    its environmental responsibilities.
        Thus, the $9.8 million requested in fiscal year 2000 in the newly
    combined line item is a $3.1 million increase over the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation.
        The requested increase of $3 million will be used for two main
    purposes. First, it will fund the clean-up of open dumps in Indian
    Country either as part of the Interagency Solid Waste group chaired by
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to requests for
    assistance from Tribes, and/or where the Bureau has contributed to an
    open dump and therefore may have some responsibility for closing it.
    The Bureau expects that the majority of the additional $3.1 million
    requested will fund solid waste projects. (The Indian Health Service
    has estimated that it will require $120 million to close approximately
    1,200 open dumps in Indian Country.)
        Second the increase will fund the corrective actions that are found
    to be necessary under the Bureau's environmental auditing program. The
    Bureau will not know the exact magnitude of those costs until it
    actually performs the audits, but audits conducted in fiscal years 1998
    and 1999 required corrective actions costing between $100,000 and
    $1,000,000 per quarter. Thus, it is possible that four quarters of
    audits in fiscal year 2000 could lead to total corrective action
    expenses as high as $4 million. The increased funding will pay for a
    portion of these corrective actions.
        Question. Can you explain why $3.8 million of the $6.8 million
    increase are identified as ``uncontrollable'' changes?
        Answer. The $3.8 million reflected under ``Uncontrollable and One-
    Time Change'' consists of a transfer of $3,771,000 from the Waste
    Management program element to the Environmental Management program
    element to properly align the environmental programs in the budget
    structure as outlined in the previous response; $38,000 is also
    included for pay raises. The increase requested for fiscal year 2000
    for the program is the same as that requested and appropriated for
    fiscal year 1999: $3 million.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
        Assistant Secretary Gover, I have been impressed with the
    cooperation from your office in addressing the problem of deteriorating
    BIA elementary and secondary schools. Last year this Subcommittee asked
    for a report on the extent of the problem and a five year plan to
    address the problem.
        Question. What is the status of that planning effort? I hear
    reports that a two tier plan is being developed. The first tier would
    allocate about $100 million per year to the backlog; the second tier
    plan would give us the full cost of up-grading all BIA elementary and
    secondary schools. Do you have an estimate of when this Subcommittee
    will have this information?
        Answer. In Senate Report 105-227, the Bureau was directed to
    develop an alternative administrative plan to complete the repair,
    renovation, and reconstruction (including new construction), of all
    education facilities in five years, on an annual basis. The Department
    submitted this plan to the Committees on June 8, 1999.
        Question. Among the 16 top priority BIA schools for replacement,
    the Shiprock Alternative School was next on the national list for
    funding, yet it was skipped over in the President's budget, and a BIA
    school in Minnesota (Fond du Lac Ojibway) was recommended for funding.
    Please give this Subcommittee a brief explanation for this action. Is
    there any possibility that the Shiprock Alternative School construction
    program could be funded in the fiscal year 2000 budget?
        Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 Budget request did not
    include construction of the Shiprock School because design of the
    project will not be completed until Fall, 1999. The Fond du Lac School
    project is presently being designed by the Tribe and will be ready for
    construction in June, 1999. Additionally, inclusion of the Shiprock
    Alternative project at its full funding level would have required the
    Bureau to offset the Shiprock costs in the Education Facilities
    Improvement Repair construction program, leaving only approximately $10
    million in the program. This would have negatively affected the
    Bureau's ability to provide portable classrooms and make repairs that
    attribute to the nearly $1 billion backlog of repair work in Bureau
    facilities, including roofing and repair projects, minor improvement
    projects, and address environmental problems in and around Bureau
    facilities. Fifty-one schools would have been affected as opposed to
    one school, Shiprock.
        In response to funding the Shiprock Alternative School construction
    program in fiscal year 2000 within the President's budget request,
    funds would have to be reduced from either the Fond du Lac project or
    by reducing the number of repair and improvement projects. The Bureau
    is opposed to taking such action. OMB Circular A-11 requirements
    related to phasing of capital improvements requires that capital
    improvement segments, if phased, must be usable when completed. The
    Shiprock Alternative School Board, working with their architect, is
    developing a phasing plan, but have indicated that it will not be
    available until sometime in May, 1999. Consequently, the Bureau does
    not have the phasing scope or costs per phase at this time. Funding for
    site work such as utilities, grading and earthwork, paving/parking, and
    access roads as a phase is not considered to be a funding phase option
    because it will not result in a complete and useable facility.
    Secondly, the Fond du Lac school situation presents real and potential
    risks to the students and staffs. It is critical that the Bureau
    advocate for construction and completion of Fond du Lac school as soon
    as possible so that the risk of loss of life can be minimized.
        There are several post-secondary BIA schools in New Mexico that
    have some fundamental concerns.
        Question. For over a decade now, the Crownpoint of Technology in
    New Mexico on the Navajo Nation has been struggling to meet annual
    operating costs. How is it that the United Tribes Technical College
    (UTTC) in North Dakota continues to receive line item funding in the
    BIA budget while CIT does not? This is of particular concern to me as
    the number of full time students in class, the number graduating, and
    the number placed in jobs is consistently higher at CIT. Is there a
    legislative change necessary to place CIT on equal footing with UTTC
    for BIA funding? If so, would you please provide this Subcommittee with
    such a recommendation?
        Answer. The United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) is a Tribally-
    controlled residential vocational school founded in 1969. It is
    accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools at
    the Certificate and/or Associate of Applied Science level, offering
    eight certificate programs, 11 Associate of Applied Science Degrees,
    and provides pre-school, K-8 and day care services for families with
    dependent children. It also provides counseling, placement, medical
    services and other support services, all focused on the unique social
    and cultural context of its students. UTTC also works in cooperation
    with the State Welfare to Work program to provide work related and
    child care services for State referred Temporary Assistance for Needy
    Families recipients. This year the college is celebrating 30 years of
    academic and cultural excellence. In that time, the College has
    graduated over 10,000 Indian students from more than 45 Federally
    recognized Indian Tribes across the nation.
        The UTTC has been funded by the Bureau for 20 years to provide
    training services to eligible Indians from across the nation.
    Initially, for many years, appropriations for UTTC were earmarked by
    the Congress. After several years, the Bureau included the funding in
    its annual budget request to Congress. Appropriation for UTTC is under
    specific statute--Indians- Employment on or Near Reservations (Public
    Law 959), with a ceiling of $3.5 million to be appropriated annually.
        Crownpoint college is similar to UTTC. The Bureau would not object
    to funding for Crownpoint, but not at the expense of UTTC. There could
    be separate authorizing legislation for Crownpoint, or as a second
    option, the ceiling of $3.5 million in the current authorizing law for
    UTTC could be increased. A third option the Congress might consider is
    revising the authorizing statutes for the Tribally Controlled Community
    Colleges to include UTTC and Crownpoint, with increased appropriations
    to accommodate all the schools.
        Question. The Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) has a
    large and growing student population of over 650. SIPI's success rate
    is very high, above 85 percent job placement rate. To keep their
    accreditation, a new science building is needed. Would you please tell
    this Subcommittee how the BIA views capital needs like this one in
    terms of responsibility and possible funding assistance?
        Answer. Capital needs at the Southwestern Polytechnic Institute
    (SIPI) in terms of responsibility and possible funding assistance can
    be addressed separately from the replacement school construction
    priority setting process. In the fiscal year 1991 Senate Report, the
    Committee indicated, ``With respect to the facility requirements of the
    post secondary schools (SIPI and Haskell), the Committee concurs with
    the recommendation of the House that master plans, rather than priority
    ranking process for education facilities, be used to address the
    comprehensive facility requirements at these locations.'' Both schools
    have completed facilities master plans. The Bureau will work with SIPI
    to develop a plan for the review and implementation of the Bureau-
    approved Master Plan, and work toward implementation of the first
    increment of work in the initial fiscal year 2001 budget request.
        Question. The Dine College campus in Shiprock, New Mexico, had a
    severe fire last year, and I thank you for your prompt emergency
    assistance. Now Dine College is planning a new campus at a different
    location in Shiprock with costs estimated to be in excess of $40
    million. Can you give this Subcommittee any guidance about how the
    plans for such a campus and its related funding might be possible?
    Could you also explain to this Subcommittee where the responsibility
    lies for capital improvements at this and other Dine college campuses
    (8 total)?
        Answer. The Dine College is not on the Bureau's construction
    priority list. The Navajo Community College and the Tribally Controlled
    Community Colleges all have specific Congressional legislative
    authority that governs their respective post-secondary institution as
    stated in the fiscal year 1991 Senate Report. Many of these
    institutions have been authorized to establish foundations as a
    mechanism to solicit the private sector for contributions and
    investment for their operations. Portions of the philanthropic gifts
    and other non-Federal funding sources could be placed in interest
    bearing accounts and applied to facilities and related infrastructure
    needs.
        On another topic, I am very interested in the proposed law
    enforcement budget for next year. As you may have heard, there is a
    virtual heroin epidemic in Rio Arriba County and northern Santa Fe
    County. The per capita heroin death rate is the highest in the nation
    in this area.
        Question. Are there any plans to allocate some of the proposed new
    law enforcement funds to help the affected Pueblos in the area, like
    San Juan, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Nambe, and Pojoaque?
        Answer. The core focus of the Presidential Initiative on Law
    Enforcement in Indian Countryhas been to address the ever evolving law
    enforcement needs in Indian Country. In fiscal year 1999, a survey of
    law enforcement needs in Indian Country was conducted by the Bureau to
    determine the ``neediest of the needy''. Based on the results of that
    survey, an additional $92,000 of Initiative funds were provided to the
    Pueblo of San Juan, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and the Pueblo of Pojoaque
    to replace 4 vehicles with mileage over 100,000. Additionally, the
    Bureau provided $285,000 to the Northern Pueblos Agency to hire 3
    uniformed officers, replace 3 vehicles, and obtain needed equipment
    such as body armor and weapons. The Agency provides direct law
    enforcement services to the Pueblo of Nambe and the Pueblo of
    Ildefonso. In fiscal year 2000, the Bureau will again assess the law
    enforcement needs in Indian Country and make distributions based on
    those findings, taking into account the assistance provided in fiscal
    year 1999. Should the Congress provide the fiscal year 2000 increase of
    $20 million, the Bureau will continue to strengthen law enforcement
    programs across the nation. Thus, based on the factors denoted, the
    Pueblos may be eligible to receive additional assistance in staffing
    and equipment needs.
        Question. Is there a planned juvenile detention center in northern
    New Mexico for the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos?
        Answer. The Bureau developed a priority list of 17 detention
    centers which was published in the Federal Register on December 30,
    1993; the Northern Pueblos Detention Facility was ranked 15 on this
    list. To date, only the top five priority projects have been provided
    appropriations by the Congress. As part of the Presidential Initiative
    on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, funding for construction,
    modernization and repair of detention centers in Indian Country is
    included in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) budget request(s) and
    therefore no funds were requested in the Bureau's request for
    construction of detention facilities in Indian Country in fiscal year
    1999 or fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 1999, DOJ was appropriated $34
    million for this purpose. DOJ's budget request for fiscal year 2000
    includes another $34 million for the construction of detention
    facilities in Indian Country. The Bureau has provided DOJ with its
    construction priority list (which includes the Northern Pueblos
    facility) and has urged DOJ to consider its existing priority lists
    because a great deal of time, energy and funds have already been
    invested to identify, plan and design some of the facilities. The
    Bureau will continue to encourage DOJ to give consideration to the
    projects identified on the Bureau's priority list.
        The Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) system remains a vital issue
    for most Tribes. In New Mexico, you mentioned to me that you were
    interested in a pilot program of accountability for these TPA funds. I
    now have a request for completing the planning for Nambe Pueblo as an
    initial pilot ``needs-based'' program. This small pueblo now receives
    less than $200,000 in TPA funds annually. Yet they seem to believe that
    your pilot accountability program will allow them to request almost $9
    million for the first year of a three year effort to meet their needs.
        Question. With at least five other pueblos (of the Eight Northern
    Indian Pueblos) looking at the Nambe example and planning similar
    increases, this pilot accountability model of yours could easily
    balloon into requests exceeding $100 million per year for these
    northern New Mexico Pueblos alone. How do you envision this
    accountability pilot working, and is it your plan to encourage such
    huge increases in funding to make it work?
        Answer. The pilot you are referring to is not a Bureau initiative;
    it is the effort of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council (NIPC).
    The Bureau is interested in the effort for two reasons. First, it is
    presented as a needs-based approach to Tribal budget requests. Second,
    it is portrayed as increasing accountability and reporting
    accomplishments that support the Government Performance and Results
    Act. The Bureau has not been provided with a final Nambe Pueblo plan
    and has not discussed the cost estimates. The Bureau does not have a
    plan to include this proposal in the fiscal year 2000 request and has
    told Nambe representatives and the NIPC that large increases in funding
    are not likely. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs has further
    stated that he will not support the plan if it takes funds away from
    other Tribal governments.
        Question. Do you support the pilot TPA effort in northern New
    Mexico as a way to make a statement about full funding of each and
    every statutory requirement supported by TPA funds? Is there a
    misunderstanding about this pilot effort that has raised the hopes of
    getting such large annual increases? Do you see the statutory
    requirements being cited to support these increases as different from
    other statutory requirements to achieve other national goals? For
    example, the Housing Act of 1936 envisions a safe and sanitory home for
    each and every American, yet Congress has never been able to fully fund
    the national housing need.
        Answer. The Bureau has not provided support to the proposal other
    than attending a briefing on the proposal and acknowledging the
    Bureau's support for a needs-based approach to requesting TPA funds.
    The Bureau has not encouraged NIPC or Nambe to believe that their
    approach would result in any significant increase in funding. The
    Bureau was told that the Northern Pueblos were interested in this
    approach even if no additional funding was provided because it was a
    logical, rational approach to requesting funds. The Bureau has seen no
    presentation of statutory requirements and would not see a difference
    between what is presented to the Senator and requirements for other
    national goals.
        Question. Finally, is the ``need based'' program pilot at Nambe
    Pueblo an idea encouraged by you as an alternative to current TPA
    commitments as a national pilot? What are the conditions for your
    support of this pilot TPA accountability program at the Eight Northern
    Indian Pueblos?
        Answer. The only encouragement provided to Nambe and NIPC was that
    their approach as explained was a tangible example of a needs-based
    approach to determining a Tribal budget request. The request would be
    supported by analysis of Tribal needs, meet Tribal membership concerns,
    and provide a mechanism for a Tribe to prioritize usage of financial
    resources from various sources, not just the Bureau. It seemed very
    consistent with the efforts of the TPA Workgroup on Tribal Needs
    Assessment in attempting to provide a mechanism to distribute future
    TPA increases, except that Nambe had considerably more Tribal
    involvement, greater details, and was broader than just TPA funding.
        The Assistant Secretary and his representatives have stated that
    the Bureau will not support the Nambe proposal if it takes funding away
    from other Pueblos, Tribes in New Mexico, or Tribes elsewhere in the
    nation. If additional TPA funds were available and Nambe had a viable
    needs- based plan for allocation of a part of those funds, the Bureau
    would support a pilot to test both the ability to satisfy the needs and
    report accomplishments under such a system. In addition, it would be
    necessary that any Tribe contract for the programs if the Tribes are
    truly going to be responsible for implementation of a needs-based plan.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
        Question. Has the TPA Work Group developed ways to quantify the
    core serviceneeds of an average Tribal government so that they can be
    used to provide a ``Benchmark'' for allocation TPA funds?
        Answer. The Workgroup on Tribal Assessment of Needs established a
    subgroup that attempted to determine standards for a variety of Tribal
    needs. The purpose was to establish a benchmark that would allow for
    the best distribution of future TPA increases by allocating funds to
    Tribes where the need is greatest. The Workgroup attempted to determine
    standards for all programs within TPA, including Tribal government, but
    also the human service and trust related programs. Development of a
    benchmark for Tribal government became the most challenging part of the
    effort. For the most part, the Workgroup used either industry standards
    or similar governmental programs as the basis for a benchmark to
    determine need. In the case of a Tribal government, it is exceedingly
    difficult to find a similar model, such as a state or local government,
    and acquire enough data to make a reasonable comparison. In addition,
    many Tribes, like local governments, have a variety of funding
    resources to support their activities beyond TPA funding. Even when a
    model of a Tribal government is described and defined, it will not be
    clear that the TPA budget category should be providing funding for all
    the activities.
        Question. I recently introduced legislation (S. 612) to require all
    federal agencies, not just the BIA and IHS, to identify and quantify
    Tribal needs and to submit that information to Congress so we have a
    better idea of what needs there are and whether they are being met or
    not. Does the Administration favor this approach? Could you provide us
    your comments on that bill?
        Answer. The Administration will support a needs-based approach to
    funding Tribes. However, the Bureau is not in a position to commit the
    Administration's support for S. 612 at this time. The Bureau will
    develop comments on S. 612 and clear them through the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) and other agencies while establishing an
    Administration's position on S. 612 as written.
        Question. I am very concerned about the ability of the Department
    to put in place proper trust management systems. I am even more
    concerned, frankly, that because the trust funds mess has gone on for
    so long that Congress gets fed up and stops providing money to fix the
    problem. What confidence do you have that the ``High Level
    Implementation Plan'' will provide a workable Trust funds system?
        Answer. The High Level Implementation Plan (HLIP) provides a road
    map to a comprehensive, coordinated, inter-Bureau effort to correct the
    many well-documented problems associated with the Department's
    management of Indian Trust funds. The HLIP incorporates supporting
    tasks, critical milestones, work plans, resource estimates and
    accountable officials who are charged with the responsibility to ensure
    its success. The HLIP was implemented under the guidance and oversight
    of the Trust Management Improvement Steering Committee, chaired by the
    Secretary of the Interior with membership including the Assistant
    Secretary--Indian Affairs, Assistant Secretary -Land and Minerals
    Management, Assistant Secretary--Policy Management and Budget, Special
    Trustee for American Indians, Solicitor and Chief Information Officer.
    The bureaus are individually responsible for implementing trust
    management improvement activities in their respective line
    organizations. On behalf of the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary--
    Policy, Management and Budget conducts semimonthly meetings with top
    bureau officials to report on the activities associated with the plan
    and to deal with any resource issues, roadblocks, or other matters.
    Since the approval of the HLIP by the Secretary, there are notable
    successes evident in the Plan's Sub projects. The Department is
    confident the HLIP is an appropriate mechanism to articulate the
    strategies to address the longstanding Trust management system
    problems.
        Question. On April 28 the Indian Affairs Committee will have an
    oversight hearing on the BIA's Capacity and Mission to determine
    whether we are asking the Bureau to do too much, or the wrong things or
    whatever. In the next 10 years do you see the Bureau primarily as a
    service provider or a technical assistance provider?
        Answer. Currently, Bureau programs are approximately 50 percent
    under contract, compact, or grant. In the next 10 years, the Bureau
    will continue to be in transition and serving both as a service
    provider and provider of technical assistance. The ``mix'' of each role
    depends largely on how much funding is provided for Bureau programs..
    The primary impediment to Tribes' interest in taking programs under
    contract or compact is that funding is insufficient to properly execute
    those programs. Nonetheless, as Tribes secure funds from other sources,
    Tribes continue to accept the responsibility for additional programs so
    the Bureau will continue to turn programs over to Tribes once the
    contract/compact moratorium is lifted. It is clearly the intention of
    the Bureau to encourage Tribes to manage their own programs and reduce
    the Bureau's role to providing technical assistance and a Federal
    Government contact for the government-to-government relationship
    promised the Tribes.
        Question. Public Law 93-638 has been very successful for the Tribes
    that have chosen to administer their own programs. Should Congress
    require that all Tribes provide services by administering self
    determination contracts and compacts? If not, how long can the Bureau
    continue to be an effective service provider to non-contracting Tribes?
        Answer. The Congress should not require Tribes to provide services
    or to establish Tribal consortia that provide services. At the same
    time, it does become increasingly difficult for the Bureau to function
    as an adequate service provider. The most difficult problem exists
    where most of the Tribes in an Agency or Area decide to contract but a
    single Tribe remains, requiring direct Bureau provision of service.
    Fortunately, this is the exception rather than the rule. In places such
    as the Aberdeen Area and the Billings Area, most of the Tribes continue
    to expect services to be provided by the Bureau. They view that service
    as a right guaranteed by the Federal Government and would only consider
    assuming responsibility for providing service if significant increases
    in funds were available. This allows the Bureau to be reasonably
    effective and take advantage of a larger scale operation. In those
    places where only a few Tribes demand direct service, the Bureau will
    have to continually reorganize to provide services where they are
    needed.
        Question. Can you briefly explain the proposed regulations on ``Fee
    to Trust Land Acquisitions'' by Indian tribes?
        Answer. The proposed regulation will amend the current fee-to-trust
    acquisition regulation found at 25 CFR 151 as follows:
        A. The proposed regulation will make acquisitions in trust easier
    for individual Indians and Tribes when the property is located on-
    reservation. Each applicant will still have to comply with the
    following factors: (a) existence of statutory authority to take lands
    into trust; (b) the need for additional land in trust status; (c) state
    how the land will be used; (d) supply title insurance or abstract of
    title; and (e) provide information that allows the Secretary to comply
    with the National Environmental Policy Act and Hazardous Substances
    Determinations. Applicants will not be required to address the impact,
    jurisdictional issues, taxation, or regulatory issues affecting the
    state and local governments. In other words, the Secretary will lean
    toward a more favorable decision to Tribes acquiring lands in trust
    inside their reservations.
        B. The proposed regulation will make acquisitions in trust more
    difficult for Tribes when the property is located off-reservation. The
    applicant will still have to comply with all the current factors for
    on-reservation acquisitions, which are: (a) authority; (b) need; (c)
    proposed use; (d) for individuals, amount of land already owned and
    decree to which the individual needs assistance in handling his
    affairs; (e) impact on the state and local governments; (f)
    jurisdictional problems and potential conflicts; (g) whether the Bureau
    is equipped to discharge additional responsibilities; and (h) provide
    information that allows the Secretary to comply with the National
    Environmental Policy Act and Hazardous Substances Determinations.
        In addition, the applicant must also address: (1) the past,
    present, proposed use of the land, and any future anticipated uses of
    the land; (2) the location of the land in relation to the reservation,
    Bureau's Agency, Bureau Area Office, and the State boundary; (3) impact
    to local governments from loss of tax revenues; (4) any agreements with
    the state or local governments for payments of lost revenues; (5)
    ability of local governments to provide public safety services (fire
    protection and emergency medical services); (6) past, present, and
    future law enforcement on the land; (7) an analysis of road capacity
    and traffic impacts; (8) impacts on available water supply and local
    utilities; and (9) impact on local sanitation and sewage services. In
    other words, the Secretary will lean toward a more favorable decision
    to the non-Indian community when Tribes are acquiring lands in trust
    outside their reservations.
        C. Lands that are contiguous to a Tribe's reservation will be
    considered as off-reservation for acquisition purposes.
        D. The proposed regulation allows Tribes without reservations to
    establish a ``Tribal Land Acquisition Area'' which will be considered
    as on-reservation for purposes of acquiring lands in trust.
        E. There are new provisions for Congressionally-mandated
    acquisitions.
        F. The Secretary will continue to not take lands into trust in
    Alaska except for the Metlakatla Indian Community.
        G. The Secretary will not take lands into trust until all
    administrative and judicial appeals are exhausted.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
                        land consolidation pilot program
        Three Wisconsin Tribes have been identified to participate in the
    Land Consolidation Pilot Program. These Tribes have expressed a number
    of concerns about the implementation of the pilot program, and in
    particular, are concerned that BIA has set up the pilot program in a
    manner that unduly limits the role of the Tribes.
        Question. The tribes have indicated that key parcels of land are
    being overlooked. Why have the tribes been prevented from identifying
    parcels of land for acquisition?
        Answer. The Appropriation language specifically states:
        ``For implementation of a pilot program for consolidation of
    fractional interests in Indian lands by direct expenditure or
    cooperative agreement, $5,000,000 to remain available until expended,
    of which not to exceed $250,000 shall be available for administrative
    expenses: Provided, That the Secretary may enter into a cooperative
    agreement, which shall not be subject to Public Law 93-638, as amended,
    with a tribe having jurisdiction over the pilot reservation to
    implement the program to acquire fractional interests on behalf of such
    tribe: Provided further, That the Secretary may develop a reservation-
    wide system for establishing the fair market value of various types of
    lands and improvements to govern the amounts offered for acquisitions
    of fractional interests: Provided further, That acquisitions shall be
    limited to one or more pilot reservations as determined by the
    Secretary: Provided further, That funds shall be available for
    acquisition of fractional interests in trust or restricted lands with
    the consent of its owners and at fair market value, and the Secretary
    shall hold in trust for such tribe all interests acquired pursuant to
    this pilot program: Provided further, That all proceeds from any lease,
    resource sales contract, right of way or other transaction derived from
    the fractional interest shall be credited to this appropriation, and
    remain available until expended, until the purchase price paid by the
    Secretary under this appropriation has been recovered from such
    proceeds: Provided further, That once the purchase price has been
    recovered, all subsequent proceeds shall be managed by the Secretary
    for the benefit of the applicable tribe or paid directly to the
    tribe.''
        The Bureau has met with Tribal officials from each of the three
    Tribes and discussed the project, Tribal participation, why the program
    was developed and its intended objective of producing a measurable
    reduction in fractional interests on the three Reservations. It is
    vital that the Tribes participate in the program to assist the Bureau
    in achieving the objectives of the pilot project and to seize increased
    economic opportunity on lands that are consolidated into Tribal
    ownership.
        To that end, the Tribes have been offered funding to assist the
    Bureau in a number of functions which will be necessary to effect the
    transactions. Given the importance of achieving success with this
    project and since it is a pilot demonstration, it is critical that the
    focus be on the reduction of small fractional interests as opposed to
    expanding the pilot to accommodate certain interests which are not
    entirely devoted to this goal.
        The Tribes are permitted to identify certain tracts as long they
    meet the intended goals and objectives of the project. The Bureau has
    not received any requests from the Tribes indicating their priorities,
    nor have they communicated any preference, in such acquisitions. The
    purpose of the project is to reduce and, in some cases, eliminate
    fractional interests for tracts of land on these Reservations. As long
    as the Tribes' priorities are aligned with this requirement, the Bureau
    will accommodate them. The difficulty exists with attempting to
    implement the project in such a way that would provide the most cost
    effective process in reducing fractional interests. The bottom line is
    to purchase as many small fractional interests as possible. If the
    project's focus is allowed to shift to interests which are larger, this
    would defeat the purpose of the project resulting in a smaller impact
    on the reduction of record keeping responsibilities for the Bureau. The
    project's primary objective is not to be a means for land acquisition
    but rather to reduce and eliminate a pervasive problem of Indian land
    titles and management. Certainly, one of the benefits is that the
    Tribes will obtain ownership and control of properties that would have
    continued to be unproductive and a drain on existing resources.
        Question. What role does the Bureau envision the tribes playing in
    future acquisition decisions? Does BIA intend to maintain the same
    level of control over future land consolidation projects?
        Answer. This project is a pilot and any future projects will be
    somewhat dependent on its outcome. It is too early in the
    implementation of this project to determine and provide any clear
    indication as to how future possible projects will be addressed.
    However, it is important that the Tribal Governments participate in the
    process to assist the Bureau in obtaining a successful result. After
    the requirements and results are determined for this project, contracts
    with Tribes could be considered as another approach that could be used
    for future allocations.
        Question. According to the tribes, there are key parcels of land
    that have ownership of less than three percent. Why has the threshold
    been set at less than two percent?
        Answer. The priority for acquiring less than two percent interests
    is because they constitute the highest percentage of all interests in
    these properties. They also represent the largest number of record
    keeping responsibilities for the Bureau and result in additional
    probates, leases, right-of- ways, financial accounts, etc. The Bureau
    has not ruled out acquiring interests above the two percent level, as
    long as it fits within the goal of overall reduction. For example, if
    an individual has multiple two percent interests and has a number of
    interests in the two to five percent range, it would be reasonable to
    attempt to purchase all of that person's interests to prevent further
    fractionation.
        Question. What would BIA's position be on a provision to permit
    Tribes to contract for the pilot project under Public Law 93-638?
        Answer. This project is a pilot and any future projects will be
    somewhat dependent on its outcome. It is too early in the
    implementation of this project to determine and provide any clear
    indication as to how future possible projects will be addressed.
    However, it is important that the Tribal Governments participate in the
    process to assist the Bureau in obtaining a successful result. After
    the requirements and results are determined for this project, contracts
    with Tribes could be considered as another approach that could be used
    for future allocations. However, the Bureau would consider contracting
    only on terms that ensure that our primary objectives are addressed.
    Acquisition of land for the Tribes is not the primary objective.
    Instead, the primary objectives are the consolidation of unproductive
    interests and the reduction of administrative costs.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                               indian trust funds
        In 1996, five Native Americans filed suit against the Clinton
    administration for mismanaging billions of dollars in trust funds held
    for Indians. BIA funnels $500 million a year into 300,000 trust
    accounts held by individual Native Americans.
        Much of the money cannot be accounted for, but BIA contends that a
    massive records overhaul will correct the problem.
        In a recent ruling, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth found
    Secretaries Babbit and Rubin in contempt for withholding trust fund
    records and other documents during the hearing. The judge assigned a
    Special Trustee, Mr. Thompson, to monitor the financial dealings of BIA
    and correct the problem.
        Question. What are your plans to overhaul the records management
    system for Indian trust accounts?
        Answer. The plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Babbitt have requested that
    we produce all records (title reports, leases, probate orders, etc.)
    related to their individual trust accounts, including those of their
    predecessors dating to the original trust patents issued in the late
    1800's. Judge Lamberth ruled Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin and the
    Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs in contempt due to our failure to
    produce all trust fund documents for five named plaintiffs and their
    predecessors in interest. The judge assigned a Special Master, Mr. Alan
    Balaran, to oversee the discovery process and administer document
    production compliance with court orders and related matters. The costs
    to produce documents for the five-named Plaintiffs and thier
    predecessors in interest based on the Government's definition of
    predecessor is estimated to be $13 million. The definition of
    predecessor remains before the Special Master for decision. The
    Solicitor has advised that the definition advocated by the Plaintiffs
    would add thousands of individuals to the definition. If Plaintiffs
    prevail, the costs to produce these documents will increase by tens of
    millions.
        In accordance with the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform
    Act of 1994, the Special Trustee is charged with trust fund reform
    oversight. Mr. Thomas Thompson is currently serving as the Acting
    Special Trustee while the Administration conducts a search to fill the
    post permanently. In April 1997, the Special Trustee submitted his
    ``Strategic Plan to Implement the Reforms Required by the American
    Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994''. Notwithstanding the
    Secretary's reservations about certain aspects of the Strategic Plan,
    the Secretary and the Special Trustee agreed that selected trust system
    improvements and data clean up efforts in the Strategic Plan should
    proceed. The approach selected to implement the Secretary's decisions
    on portions of the Special Trustee's Strategic Plan is centered on 13
    major Sub Projects outlined in the Department of the Interior's High
    Level Implementation Plan. This Plan outlines the comprehensive,
    coordinated, inter-Bureau effort to correct the many well- documented
    problems associated with the Department's management of Indian trust
    funds. Implementation of this Plan will cost $136 million through
    fiscal year 2000.
        Presently, the Office of the Special Trustee and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs are developing and implementing two systems--the Trust
    Funds Accounting System and Trust Assets Account Management System--
    which will facilitate management of trust funds and trust land
    transactions. Records management considerations are being incorporated
    into the information system development. For example, all existing
    electronic information systems will have their data and documentation
    scheduled under the Federal Records Act requirements.
        In addition, the Secretary's High Level Implementation Plan
    contains a Records Management Sub project to resolve Indian Affairs
    long standing records management weakness in the Bureau. The scope of
    the Sub project includes Indian Affairs records policy, management,
    storage, access, control and disposition and electronic records-
    keeping, including imaging technology. The Sub project was further
    refined based on a recent study of the Bureau and Office of Special
    Trustee's (OST) records management activities. The recommendations and
    actions to be taken to implement each of the recommendations that
    resulted from the study follow. While OST has requested $7.4 million in
    fiscal year 2000 to reform Indian Affairs records management, senior
    officials from the BIA, OST and the Department will share in the
    responsibility of overseeing the reform efforts. Please see attached
    High Level Implementation Plan--Records Management Sub Project.
        Question. What is BIA doing to compensate the Native Americans
    whose trust accounts have been lost?
        Answer. In November, 1997, the Department submitted its
    recommendations for settlement of disputed Tribal trust fund accounts
    to the Congress. The recommendations were based on the Tribal
    Reconciliation Project, a five-year, $21 million study of Tribal
    accounts undertaken by Arthur Anderson, LLP under the supervision of
    the Department. The Department drafted legislation and, after a series
    of consultation meetings with Tribes, submitted the proposal to the
    Congress. The Administration's proposal envisioned immediate payment of
    known errors, a good faith settlement offer to all Tribes with trust
    accounts that did not accept the good faith settlement offer, and
    finally, litigation for those circumstances where a settlement could
    not be reached. It was introduced by Congressman Miller by request on
    April 30, 1998 (H.R. 3782). A joint hearing of the Senate Indian
    Affairs Committee and the House Resources Committee was held on the
    proposal on July 22, 1998. The Inter Tribal Monitoring Association
    (ITMA) offered its own proposal as well. The 105th Congress ended
    without the adoption of any Tribal settlement legislation. Departmental
    officials have met several times this year with ITMA representatives to
    discuss principles for a new consensus settlement bill. The Department
    invites active involvement of the Congress in developing Tribal Trust
    Funds settlement legislation.
        The administration of Individual Indian Monies accounts for
    individual Indians is the subject of the Cobell v. Babbitt et. al.
    litigation. While Plaintiffs in this lawsuit contend that they have
    claims for recovery of ``lost'' funds and/or for damages for alleged
    mismanagement of trust lands (or other assets), this lawsuit does not
    involve a claim for monetary relief. Lawsuits for such claims have yet
    to be filed.
                    more teachers in native american schools
        In an effort to reduce class size in Native American Communities,
    Education Secretary Riley has introduced a program to train 1,000
    teachers to teach in Native American communities.
        The BIA Office of Education Programs will receive $3.46 million
    from the Department of Education's Class Size Reduction Program for the
    173 schools funded by BIA. Although the funds are to target reducing
    class size in grades one through three, each BIA-funded school is
    eligible to participate.
        At this time, the Department of Education feels funds should be
    distributed based on student enrollment. However, if this method of
    distribution is used, only 62 of the 173 Bureau funded schools will
    receive enough money to hire one teacher.
        Question. How does the BIA propose the money from the program be
    distributed?
        Answer. The Bureau is working with the Department of Education
    (Department) on the distribution methodology for the Class Size
    Reduction program funds. The Department is currently requiring that
    these funds be distributed to schools based on enrollment and level of
    poverty. As BIA's 185 schools qualify for the free and reduced lunch
    program and as high poverty schools the Bureau is working with the
    Department to re-evaluate its distribution method.. In addition, the
    Bureau funds many schools with small enrollments due to the isolation
    and rural conditions where Bureau schools are located. If funds are
    distributed based on enrollment, the Bureau will have some schools
    receiving only $900, which is not sufficient to effect a reduction in
    class size. The Bureau is recommending that the funds be distributed
    equally to each school. This would result in each school receiving
    approximately $20,000, which in some locations is enough to hire a
    beginning teacher. The Bureau will continue to work with the Department
    on this issue.
                                 ishi's remains
        Three weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Smithsonian's Museum of
    Natural History Director regarding the repatriation of the remains of
    Ishi, the last of the Yahi Indians.
        For over 80 years, it was widely believed that Ishi's entire body
    was cremated by officials at the University of California, Berkeley
    after his death from tuberculosis. But in February, two historians
    found that a Berkeley anthropologist offered Ishi's brain to the
    Smithsonian.
        Ishi's remains are currently stored in a formaldehyde tank at the
    Smithsonian Institution's Maryland storage facility. The discovery has
    angered American Indians in Northern California, and around the nation,
    who believe that an Indian's spirit cannot travel to the afterlife
    unless his remains are buried whole. The rest of Ishi's body was
    cremated and buried in a cemetery in Colma, California.
        Museum policy dictates that Native American remains can only be
    returned to ancestors of a person's tribe. However, Ishi was the last
    of his tribe.
        Question. The Smithsonian can only return Ishi's remains to Indians
    with close cultural, linguistic and dietary ties to Ishi's people. What
    can the BIA do to help in the search for possible ancestors of the Yahi
    tribe?
        Answer. Under the Native American Graves Protection and
    Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), remains are returned to the Tribe with which
    they have a close cultural affiliation. This distinction is
    significant, because the closest affiliation may, in fact, be a quite
    distant relationship. Under NAGPRA, museums are responsible for
    determining which Tribe has the closest cultural affiliation to a given
    set of remains. The Bureau has no statutory or regulatory role in that
    process. The Bureau may, however, serve as a source of information for
    museums who are seeking to make determinations of closest cultural
    affiliation.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Dorgan. Thank you all very much for appearing. The
    subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    April 15, when we will receive testimony from Mike Dombeck,
    Chief, U.S. Forest Service, and James R. Lyons, Under
    Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, USDA.
        [Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., Wednesday, April 14, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    April 15.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Domenici, Burns,
    Bennett, Byrd, and Kohl.
        Also present: Senator Craig.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENTS OF:
            JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
                ENVIRONMENT
            MIKE DOMBECK, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            VINCETTE GOERL, DEPUTY CHIEF, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            RON STEWART, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION
            GLORIA MANNING, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
            ROBERT LEWIS, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
            CLYDE THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, BUSINESS OPERATIONS
            JANICE MC DOUGLE, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE
                FORESTRY

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton. Good morning. As we begin this hearing I am
    delighted to welcome as witnesses Jim Lyons, Under Secretary
    for Natural Resources and the Environment, of the Department of
    Agriculture, and Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service,
    both of whom are familiar with this subcommittee and have been
    here frequently before.

                               budget resolution

        Before we take up the Forest Service budget request for the
    fiscal year 2000, let me make some observations about the
    current fiscal climate in which this subcommittee is required
    to do its work. Based on a budget resolution, which will be
    passed later today, the total for non-defense discretionary
    spending available for the entire appropriations subcommittee
    will be less than a freeze level. This subcommittee can expect,
    therefore, that its allocation will also be less than last
    year's.
        Accordingly, I do not see how the Congress can provide more
    than the $1 billion increase proposed by the President for this
    year's Interior and related agencies' bill. It is against this
    backdrop that we must examine the Forest Service budget.

                           budget and accountability

        After the various gimmicks are set aside, the President
    proposes to increase the agency's budget by $172 million over
    1999. Even if we were not faced with the current budget
    constraints, it is increasingly difficult for members in either
    the House or Senate to support such large increases in the
    Forest Service budget. There is a widespread feeling that the
    Forest Service has not become accountable when it becomes to
    policy issues or how it spent its money.
        For example, the Forest Service's financial statements have
    been subject to an annual audit by the USDA Inspector General
    and the General Accounting Office since fiscal year 1991. The
    agency has yet to receive a clean audit opinion despite
    repeated promises to improve its performance. Moreover, in
    January 1989, the General Accounting Office added the Forest
    Service to its list of agencies at ``high risk'' of waste,
    fraud, abuse and mismanagement due to the unreliability of the
    agency's financial statements.
        The agency does not fare much better when it comes to
    fulfilling its policy mission. Indeed, the Forest Service seems
    each year to move farther and farther away from its statutory
    mission of multiple-use to one solely of preservation. The
    agency's year 2000 budget proves the point. While the Service
    proposes large increases in many of its non-commodity programs,
    the only program slated for a significant decrease is the
    timber program.
        Let us review some of these programs in a little more
    detail. First, there is $53 million in increases for the
    purchase of conservation easements and for USDA rural business
    loans as a part of the administration's land legacy smart
    growth initiative; second, $37 million in increases for
    research in the areas of vegetation management and wildlife and
    aquatic habit; and third, $23 million more for fish and
    wildlife habitat management.
        As I said, the only Forest Service program slated for a
    large decrease is timber sales. Apparently, the 75 percent
    decrease in timber harvest levels on Forest Service lands since
    1990 does not fit with the agency's agenda, because the fiscal
    year 2000 budget proposes to cut the timber sales program by
    another $30 million and reduce its harvest level an additional
    400 million board feet, and that is not all.
        By the Forest Service's own estimates the agency's recently
    announced interim rule implementing a moratorium on road
    building in roadless areas will also serve to delay 170 million
    to 260 million board feet currently planned for offer in fiscal
    years 1999 and 2000.
        Other funding priorities in this budget raise troubling
    questions. The Forest Service wildfire preparedness program,
    which performs critical work concerning human safety and the
    protection of Federal and private property, were frozen at last
    year's levels. But according to the agency's own formula this
    represents a 7-percent decrease in the preparedness level.
        I do not see the merits of this decision when recent data
    compiled by the GAO shows that 39 million acres of national
    forest lands in the interior west are a tinderbox. Likewise,
    the agency's decision to fund the recreation management program
    at last year's level in the face of ever-increasing demand for
    recreation by the public raises questions about how the agency
    is allocating its resources. I find it difficult to reconcile
    increases of 600 percent for programs that focus on acquiring
    easements on private land with the decision to hold level or
    cut many of these other critical programs that serve existing
    forest service lands.
        Do not misunderstand me. Acquisition programs like Forest
    Legacy have done good work on the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway,
    and other projects across the country, but the magnitude of the
    proposed increase in this program in light of other funding
    needs seems excessive.

                              budget restructuring

        Finally, at last year's hearing we discussed the issue of
    budget restructuring. Chief Dombeck and Mr. Lyons, along with
    then Chief Operating Officer Francis Pendolfi emphasized the
    need for significant budget restructuring as a necessary part
    of fiscal accountability for the Forest Service.
        Last year's bill directed the Forest Service to eliminate
    the general administration line item as a part of larger budget
    restructuring proposals that the agency would work out with
    Congress prior to your submission of the fiscal year 2000
    budget. I see that this budget still contains the general
    administration line item, and that the fiscal year 2000 budget
    includes only minor restructuring.
        It does not seem that budget restructuring has been taken
    seriously. At a minimum the Forest Service has disregarded the
    explicit direction of Congress. As I said last year, while we
    may disagree on some policy issues, I believe that we should be
    able to work together on a budget restructuring proposal that
    will enhance the Forest Service's ability to account for
    appropriated dollars and get work done on the ground. I look
    forward to hearing from you about any proposals the Forest
    Service is working on in this area.
        With that, I will turn to my distinguished ranking
    Democratic member, Senator Byrd.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a
    question about the Wood Education and Resource Center. The
    President's budget request for the Forest Service funds for the
    center is $1.5 million, which covers basics such as salaries,
    but not much else.
        In fiscal year 1999, at my request, and with the direction
    of this committee and the Congress, the Forest Service took
    over the Hardwood Training Center and renamed it the Wood
    Education and Resource Center. We added $2.5 million directly
    to the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for that center. It is
    now being operated by the State and private forestry part of
    the Forest Service, but the Forest Service has also formed a
    partnership between the Wood Education and Resource Center.
    Were you asking for questions at this point, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Gorton. Well, basically, I was letting people have
    their opening statements, and I will let the two witnesses
    testify first, Senator Byrd.
        Senator Byrd. Fine. Let me just postpone the remainder of
    my statement and question until you are ready for that.
        Senator Gorton. OK. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. I have no statement. Mine will come in the
    form of questions, Mr. Chairman. I am just absolutely ecstatic
    and elated waiting in anticipation of the witnesses before us.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Bennett.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. I am sure the witnesses are as well. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for an opening
    statement. I want to welcome Secretary Lyons and Chief Dombeck.
    I have met with them both in anticipation of their testimony,
    and I have appreciated the way in which they have always kept
    the lines of communication open and worked with me on issues
    relating to Utah.
        I must raise one issue generally, which I have raised with
    them privately, but need to get on the record, which I think
    may not be a parochial issue, and from the chairman's opening
    statement does not sound to me like it is completely parochial.

                                 FOREST HEALTH

        The Forest Service's new direction seems to be aimed at
    eliminating timber sales. We have a forest health crisis in the
    Dixie National Forest. Over 200,000 acres of the forest have
    been decimated by beetles, and there is concern that the Forest
    Service has not done enough to stop the decimation, and the
    problem is that the local mills are starving, for lack of wood,
    and by coincidence the local forest is starving too, because
    the beetles are not being dealt with, and the cutting down of
    trees that would stop the infestation of the beetles is not
    being allowed.
        There are those that have gone so far as to say that, in an
    effort to prevent timber sales, which seems to be the mission
    of the Forest Service currently, or some portions of the Forest
    Service, they are allowing a condition that is destroying the
    forest, and we will end up with neither forest nor forest
    sales.
        So that is an issue we think we ought to pursue, and I am
    looking forward to hearing from the witnesses on that and other
    issues relating to the timber sale question that the chairman
    raised.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        I think at this point we should hear from the witnesses. I
    believe Mr. Lyons, you are schedule to go first.

                    summary statement of Hon. James R. Lyons

        Mr. Lyons. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Fine.
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, sir. It is a pleasure to be
    here this morning and to be joined by Senators Byrd, Burns, and
    Bennett to discuss issues related to the Forest Services fiscal
    year 2000 budget.

                        forest health and sustainability

        Last year when I testified before the subcommittee I
    emphasized that despite the many contentious debates we have
    had over Forest Service management issues, I believe the
    Congress and the administration agree in many more areas than
    we disagree, at least in terms of our overall goal of
    protecting the health and sustainability of the nation's
    forest, and we worked together last year over the fiscal year
    1999 appropriations debate, and I think worked out some very
    contentious issues.
        For example, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we worked very
    closely with you to try to resolve issues over conveyance of
    the Wind River Nursery of Skamania County in exchange for
    county lands while protecting the research values of the Wind
    River Experiment Station, and I think that project is
    proceeding nicely.
        I think there may be some technical changes to what we
    agreed to last year, but I think all parties are in agreement
    that we can get this issue resolved.
        Similarly, we worked diligently to finalize a complex land
    exchange between the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee
    National Forest and Plum Creek Timber Company, which I think is
    going to benefit both the company and the public in that region
    of the country. We also worked closely with Congress on a range
    of broad national issues.
        One of those, of course, was the forest health issue, and
    we are pleased with your granting us the authority to develop
    an experimental program we call the Stewardship Contracting
    Program to help improve forest health in collaboration with
    local interests through long-term contracts designed to address
    forest health concerns. I think in a number of instances,
    although we agreed to disagree in others, we were able to work
    together to accomplish some very important things.
        This year's budget, despite the concern we have for the
    overall budget resolution and the atmosphere in which we are
    working, would recommend a 6.5-percent increase in our
    appropriations over the 1999 appropriations act. The budget
    continues to emphasize critical investments necessary for the
    management, restoration, and protection of the agency's 192
    million acres of public lands as well as needed reinvestments
    in the State and private arena, as well as in the research
    programs.

                            lands legacy initiative

        There are a number of initiatives that were identified in
    the budget that I would like to highlight for the members of
    the subcommittee. First of all the President's budget includes
    a new Lands Legacy Initiative, which you referenced in your
    opening statement, Mr. Chairman. The Lands Legacy Initiative is
    a $1 billion Federal program which includes about $218 million
    in Forest Service funding.
        It is an initiative that focuses on working with States,
    local governments, and willing partners to protect great
    places, conserve open space for recreation and wildlife, and to
    preserve forests, farmlands, and coastal areas.
        Currently, 30 million people live within an hour's drive of
    national forest system lands, and that has changed dramatically
    the management and the pressures that are placed on our forest
    supervisors.
        Recently, the front page of the Portland Oregonian, for
    example, highlighted a decision by the Mount Hood National
    Forest supervisor to reevaluate a proposal to limit hiking on
    the parts of the forest's wilderness lands. When the supervisor
    proposed to limit access the public outcry was such that he
    elected to pull back and take another look at how to better
    manage the recreation use on the Mount Hood, which is growing
    at an exponential rate.
        The national forests adjacent or in close proximity to
    cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
    Boise, Salt Lake, Albuquerque, Boston, and Durham, New
    Hampshire, and many others are increasingly challenged to meet
    the multiple and expanding needs of customers who also share in
    the ownership of these resources.
        Two elements of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative
    would support the acquisition of long-term conservation
    easements, the forest lands, and open space threatened by
    development. To be clear, these programs are to be used only to
    acquire lands and interest in lands on a willing seller basis,
    but we believe additional investments in the Forest Service's
    land acquisition and the Forest Legacy program are critical
    components of the fiscal year 2000 budget.

                          puget sound map photographs

        I want to also highlight another element of the Lands
    Legacy Initiative, Mr. Chairman, by use of satellite photos. I
    will put that up now. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you are very
    familiar with this part of the world.
        Senator Gorton. I can tell what that is a map of.
        Mr. Lyons. I thought you would. What is interesting about
    this map, and I want to credit American Forests for working
    with the Forest Service in putting this information together,
    is that there has been a tremendous loss of tree cover in the
    Puget Sound region over the past few years. In fact, the total
    loss during this time period has been 37 percent of the tree
    cover in that particular region.
        I think this helps to illustrate the point that the loss of
    forest cover and rapidly urbanizing environments like Seattle
    is a risk to watersheds, to viewsheds, and in general, the
    quality of life in the region. You are all too familiar, Mr.
    Chairman, and, in fact, I realize that you recently had a
    hearing on issues related to salmon and salmon listings in the
    region, this deforestation and the extent to which it is
    occurring is one of the issues that is exacerbating concerns
    related to future salmon habitat.
        Now, the Forest Service administers programs designed to
    work with communities to help maintain forest cover, to
    preserve open space, and those quality-of-life elements that
    are disappearing from the Puget Sound region. The specific
    program I am referring to is the Urban and Community Forestry
    Program.

                          urban and community forestry

        It is one of the programs we have proposed for an increase
    in funding this year, and hopefully for permanent funding,
    should the Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] legislation
    be authorized this year by the Congress.
        It is a program that is vital to helping communities help
    themselves protect their national resources, whether they are
    in their communities, neighborhoods, or backyards. I want to
    point out that we also have active Urban and Community Forestry
    Programs in all 50 States, especially in the Salt Lake area,
    that I know Senator Bennett is very familiar with.
        Just 3 weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to you when
    Mike and I came to visit, I was part of a wetlands restoration
    effort on the Dwuamish estuary, and I would acknowledge, as you
    pointed out, that we are not likely to save the Dwuamish
    estuary through one wetlands restoration effort.
        I think the participation in that restoration work does a
    lot to not only engender community spirit, but a greater
    understanding of the role that communities can play in long-
    term conservation.

                            clean water action plan

        The President's fiscal year 2000 goal for the Clean Water
    Action Plan is to further enhance Forest Service programs which
    assure that all the nation's lands, not just the National
    Forest lands, provide clean water, healthy fish and wildlife,
    as well as sustain the production of goods and services the
    public demands from our forested lands. Certainly, the debate
    over salmon and the future of listed species of salmon,
    steelhead, and bulltrout has brought the issue of watershed
    health and watershed protection to national focus.

                              insects and disease

        Equally important to watershed health would be appropriate
    investments in sustainable forestry, particularly, as Senator
    Bennett pointed out, where insects and disease have killed
    thousands of acres of productive forest lands, oftentimes
    leaving a powder keg of dead and dying trees awaiting ignition.
        I know some of the members have seen this forest risk map
    that we are displaying now. I want to refer in particular, for
    an example, to the insect and disease problems we are facing in
    Northern Idaho. In recognition of the problems reflected by the
    threat in Northern Idaho, we are working cooperatively with the
    State to limit the impact of bark beetles on high-value stands,
    particularly in recreational and wildland-urban interface areas
    where the risk of wildfire to life and property is significant.
        We are using various means to address the beetle
    infestation, as well as removing currently infested trees,
    conducting thinning, and establishing field breaks to reduce
    hazardous fuels, and to restore stands to a drought resistant
    and insect and disease tolerant situation.

                               payments to states

        The fiscal year 2000 budget contains additional initiatives
    as well. As was proposed last year, the administration again
    intends to forward legislation to stabilize payments to States.
    I believe it is essential to provide these payments through a
    process that does not link the output of forest products to the
    education of our rural school children or the quality of roads
    used by their parents.
        On this subject, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the debate is
    centered around the future of the timber sale program, as if
    this is the only issue at hand, but I would implore the
    Congress to take a different look at the issue. The reality is
    that this issue is about education.
        Is it right to continue to balance the education of
    thousands of children in rural communities on the backs of the
    timber sale program? If you asked a parent of one of these
    children if they were more comfortable with a stable funding
    base for their children's education needs, as opposed to
    funding that depended on future Federal timber sales, they
    might provide you with a different perspective.

                                     roads

        Let me briefly focus on one additional issue, Mr. Chairman,
    and that is the Forest Service Road System. The fiscal year
    2000 budget seeks an increase in funding of about $23 million
    for the maintenance of roads important to rural transportation,
    as well as investments that will help obliterate roads that are
    no longer needed or beyond repair. Although we are pleased with
    this increase, it is important to emphasize that the
    maintenance and capital improvement needs of the Forest Service
    road system continues to grow. This chart helps to illustrate
    that fact.

                                  maintenance

        As you can see, the annual maintenance needs for our road
    system today are about $568 million compared to the fiscal year
    1999 funding level of just about $100 million. Until we close
    this gap, either through increased funding or reducing the size
    of the road system, the $8.4 billion backlog in forest road
    maintenance will continue to grow significantly each year.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to end my remarks by restating that I
    am confident that with your support we can work together to
    build a Forest Service program that accomplishes the long-term
    land health objectives that we have, that helps to ensure
    delivery of clean water, provides quality access, assures
    diverse recreational opportunities for all Americans, and helps
    to preserve and protect the natural legacy that we are
    entrusted to manage.

                               prepared statement

        I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the numbers are tight, and
    we are going to face a very difficult challenge, but as you
    demonstrated in the past, I am confident with your continued
    leadership we will be able to get through this issue as well,
    and I look forward to addressing any questions that the
    subcommittee may have.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of James R. Lyons
        Chairman Gorton, Senator Byrd, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000.
                                   background
        Last year when I testified before this Subcommittee, I emphasized
    that despite many contentious debates we have had on Forest Service
    management issues, Congress and the Administration agree more than we
    disagree on our goals for the sustainable use of our national forests.
    Despite differences regarding budget priorities and the environmental
    riders which were part of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations debate,
    we worked together to develop a bill which moved the Forest Service
    forward to resolve some of the contentious issues we faced in
    addressing high priority watershed and forest health concerns.
        Let me note some examples of this cooperation: In your home State
    of Washington, Mr. Chairman, we worked closely with you to convey
    portions of the Wind River Nursery to Skamania County in exchange for
    county lands while protecting the research values of the Wind River
    Experimental Forest. We worked with you to finalize a complex land
    exchange between the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National
    Forests and the Plum Creek Timber Company which will enhance recreation
    opportunities, improve wilderness management, and result in more
    efficient administration of Forest Service and Plum Creek lands. We
    also worked closely with Congress on broad national issues including
    developing an experimental program for end results contracting to
    improve forest health in collaboration with local interests. We jointly
    addressed the sensitive issue of anchor bolts in wilderness areas by
    increasing public involvement as part of the decision making process.
    As these examples show, I continue to believe we have common interests
    and greater agreement than disagreement, although I'm sure we'll be
    involved in tough debate again over this year's budget.
        As for the Forest Service fiscal year 2000 budget, it would provide
    for an overall increase in discretionary appropriations of 6.5 percent
    compared to the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act. The budget
    continues to emphasize critical investments necessary for the
    management, restoration, and protection of the agency's 192 million
    acres of public lands. In addition, the budget proposes a substantial
    increase of $37.2 million to enhance the agency's leading role in
    Forest and Rangeland Research. Finally, the budget also proposes
    increases in selected State and Private Forestry programs, which are
    key components of the agency's management portfolio that has been
    largely overlooked.
                            presidential priorities
        The President has proposed several initiatives in the fiscal year
    2000 budget, as well as continued investment in the Clean water Action
    Plan, first initiated as part of the fiscal year 1999 budget.
        The President's budget includes a new Lands Legacy Initiative, the
    largest one-year investment ever made in the preservation of America's
    lands. The Lands Legacy Initiative is a $1 billion Federal program, and
    includes $217.6 million in Forest Service funding. The initiative
    focuses on working with States, tribes, local governments, and willing
    private partners to protect great places, conserve open space for
    recreation and wildlife, and to preserve forests, farmlands, and
    coastal areas.
        Currently, 30 million people live within an hour's drive of
    national forest system lands. The pressures on these lands to meet
    growing recreation demand are tremendous. Recently the front page of
    the Portland Oregonian highlighted a decision by the Mount Hood
    National Forest Supervisor to reevaluate a proposal to limit hiking on
    parts of the forests' wilderness lands. Limits were proposed to
    maintain the wilderness character of these hiking experiences, yet
    public outcry required a new look at the proposal.
        National forests adjacent or in close proximity to cities like
    Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boise, Salt Lake,
    Albuquerque, Boston, Durham, NH and many others are increasingly
    challenged to meet the multiple and expanding needs of customers who
    also share in the ownership of these resources.
        In New England, for example, the Forest Service has made judicious
    use of limited land acquisition funds to purchase key recreation areas
    and lakefront properties to ensure continued public access. The Lake
    Tarleton acquisition completed last year in partnership with the Trust
    for Public Land provides one good illustration of how limited
    acquisition dollars can have a large impact in the region.
        Similarly, in partnership with the governors of Maine, New
    Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, the Forest Service has committed
    funds from the Forest Legacy program to aid in acquisition of key
    timber and utility lands that are now being put up for sale in large
    blocks. This is the same program, Mr. Chairman, that we've used in
    partnership with the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust and other land
    conservation groups in the Pacific Northwest to preserve important
    recreation areas and hiking trails such as those that line the
    Interstate 90 corridor.
        Two elements of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative would
    support the acquisition of long term conservation easements of
    forestlands and open space threatened by development. To be clear,
    these programs are used only to acquire lands and interest in lands on
    a willing seller basis. But we believe additional investment in the
    Forest Service's land acquisition and Forest Legacy programs are
    critical components of the fiscal year 2000 budget.
        I want to also highlight another element of the Lands Legacy
    initiative by use of satellite photographs. I'm sure you recognize this
    part of the world, Mr. Chairman. It's the Puget Sound region and the
    three photos illustrate the degree to which tree cover has disappeared.
    In fact the total loss in this time period has been 37 percent of tree
    cover in the 24 years between 1973 and 1997 as growth occurred in the
    area. I want to thank American Forests for providing me with these
    photos to help illustrate the point that the loss of forested cover in
    rapidly urbanizing environments like Seattle is a risk to the
    watersheds, viewsheds, and, in general, to the quality of life of the
    region. The Forest Service administers programs designed to work with
    communities to help maintain forest cover, preserve open space and
    those quality of life elements that are disappearing in the Puget Sound
    region. The specific program I am referring to is the Urban and
    Community Forestry Program and it is one of the programs proposed for
    increases (and, hopefully, permanent, funding) in the President's
    budget.
        This program is vital to helping communities help themselves
    protect the natural resources in their communities, neighborhoods, and
    backyards. Just three weeks ago, I participated in a project to restore
    a wetland in the Dwuamish estuary in the industrial part of Seattle. I
    know you know that area, Mr. Chairman. I won't suggest to you that we
    can bring back the Dwuamish entirely, but I can assure you that the 50
    or so schoolkids who participated in the project and the Federal,
    State, and local partners who joined in probably got more benefit out
    of the project than the watershed. Projects like this occur every year
    in communities in every State in the nation and the Urban and Community
    Forestry Program makes that possible. This program needs your continued
    and expanded support.
        The President's fiscal year 2000 goal for the Clean Water Action
    Plan is to further enhance Forest Service programs which assure that
    all the nation's lands, not just National Forest lands, provide clean
    water, healthy fish and wildlife habitat, as well as the sustain
    production of goods and services that the public demands of our
    forested lands. Certainly the debate over salmon and the future of
    listed species of salmon, steelhead, and bulltrout has brought regional
    if not national focus to the importance of clean water. It is important
    to keep in mind the fact that approximately 25 percent of the water
    that flows in the west originates in the national forests. Yet the
    health of many national forest watershed has been adversely affected by
    excess roading, logging, and the management activities whose cumulative
    effects are a cause for concern.
        Equally important to watershed health will be appropriate
    investments in sustainable forestry, particularly where insect and
    disease have killed thousands of acres of productive forests leaving a
    powderkeg of dead and dying trees awaiting ignition. For this reason,
    renewed focus is being placed on investments in thinning forest lands
    and treating devastated watersheds through tree removal and prescribed
    fire.
        I know some Members of the Committee have seen the forest risk
    maps. Let me refer to the insect and disease map now. Note the severe
    problem in Northern Idaho as identified by the large red area. In
    recognition of this problem the Forest Service is working cooperatively
    with the State of Idaho to limit the impact of the bark beetles in high
    value stands in recreational and wildland/urban interface areas using
    pheromones to manipulate local beetle populations. The Forest Service
    is proposing watershed restoration work on National Forest System lands
    to improve forest health by removing currently infested trees, reducing
    the build-up of hazardous fuel, and implementing stand treatments to
    restore stands to drought resistant and insect and disease tolerant
    species composition with greater proportions of white pine, western
    larch, and ponderosa pine.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget contains additional initiatives. As was
    proposed last year, the Administration again intends to forward
    legislation to stabilize payments to States. I believe it is essential
    to provide these payments through a process that does not link the
    output of forest products to the education of our rural school children
    or the quality of the roads used by their parents. If enacted, the
    legislation will result in long-term predictability of payments needed
    by the States and counties of America.
        On this subject, Mr. Chairman, I implore the Congress to take a
    different look at this issue. Unfortunately, some would have this be
    another debate over the future of timber harvests on the national
    forests. But this describes the issue in too narrow a context.
        The reality is that this issue is about education. Is it right to
    continue to balance the education of thousands of children in rural
    communities on the back of the timber sale program? If you asked a
    parent of one of those children if they were more comfortable with a
    stable funding base for their children's education needs as opposed to
    funding that depended upon future Federal timber sales, they might
    provide you with a different perspective. And that's not to say that
    the Administration and the Forest Service are not committed to a
    sustainable timber supply from the national forests. We've made clear
    our opposition to ``zero cut.'' But the uncertainties of timber supply,
    dictated by budgets, an annual debate in the halls of Congress, public
    opinion, and local challenges are such that greater certainty is needed
    in terms of the payments to counties for education.
        Let me briefly focus on the forest road system. The fiscal year
    2000 budget seeks increased funding of $22.6 million for maintenance of
    roads important to rural transportation, and to obliterate roads no
    longer need or beyond repair. Although we are pleased with this
    increase, it is important to emphasize that road needs are significant
    and the backlog of deferred maintenance and capital improvement needs
    continues to grow. Let me show you a chart that depicts this. As you
    can see the annual maintenance needs for our road system today is $568
    million as compared to a fiscal year 1999 funding level of $99 million.
    Until we close this gap, either through increased funding or reducing
    the size of the road system, the $8.4 billion backlog will continue to
    grow significantly each year.
        Finally, the President's budget includes a significant increase in
    funding for the Forest Service's Research Program. Research and sound
    scientific information are the foundations for natural resource
    management and critical elements in guiding future natural resource
    management decisions. As recommended in the recent report of the
    Committee of Scientists, we are seeking to enhance our research
    investments to build a stronger link between science and management.
    The proposed increases in research funding in the President's fiscal
    year 2000 budget are vital links to a sound scientific foundation for
    sustainable forest management.
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks simply by restating that I am
    confident that with your support we can work together to build a Forest
    Service program that accomplishes long-term land health objectives,
    delivers clean water, provides quality access, assures diverse
    recreational opportunities for greater numbers of Americans, and
    continues providing strong livelihoods for communities for generations
    to come.
        I know that the numbers are tighter and therefore, the challenges
    even greater. But, we've done it before and, with your continued
    leadership, will do it again. I look forward to working with you in
    constructing the fiscal year 2000 budget; the agency's first step
    toward its second century of conservation leadership.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions you may have.

                       summary statement of mike dombeck

        Senator Gorton. We will hear first from Mr. Dombeck.
        Mr. Dombeck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Byrd,
    committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to
    talk about our Forest Service programs.
        I have with me the Deputy Chief of the Programs of the
    Forest Service, Vincette Goerl, Deputy Chief, Chief Financial
    Officer; Ron Stewart, Programs and Legislation; and we also
    have Gloria Manning, from National Forest System; Robert Lewis,
    from our Research and Technology Development; Clyde Thompson,
    Business Operations; and Janice McDougle, from State and
    Private Forestry.
        I have been in the job now about 2 years, just a little bit
    over that. In fact, it has been an interesting ride, seeing the
    evolution and being part of the controversy of natural resource
    management in the United States, and the issues that the Forest
    Service has been involved in, and as one who likes history, it
    is interesting to see that many of the controversies we are
    dealing with today are very similar to the controversies that
    the first chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, dealt
    with. I think one of the premises that I like to keep in mind
    is that we need to maintain our view on the long-term interest
    and health of the land and the communities that are dependent
    upon the land.
        The 2000 budget that we will be discussing, I will be happy
    to highlight some of those areas, but one thing that strikes
    me, especially over the last couple of decades, is that the
    makeup of our demographics, the urban growth in the United
    States, the continual change in stress on local communities,
    that fewer people are viewing the national forest as a
    warehouse of commodities to be taken to market, and more people
    are putting values on the overall health of watershed
    management, forest health, and the moralistic values that the
    forest ecosystems provide in this country.
        The ensuing controversy that I mentioned has emanated in
    many, many ways, and I am sure we will discuss many of those
    ways soon, but some people look to you, the Congress, to fix
    problems that they see depending on how their interests are
    affective. Others push appeals to the limit, so the agency can
    get on with either producing timber or not producing it,
    depending upon their point of view, and still others ask the
    courts to resolve land use policies through litigation, and
    oftentimes we find ourselves as the wrestling mat waiting for
    someone else to focus on resolving our issues.
        I am hopeful that this budget and the continuing dialog
    that we can have by working more closely with local
    communities, with the communities of interest, will enable us
    to move forward in the long-term health of the land, because
    healthy watersheds, as the Organic Administration Act points
    out, as well a sustainable supply of timber are important to
    what we do on national forests.
        In fact, I am one who believes that there is room for a
    reasonable flow of outflows of timber, livestock, water, the
    recreation opportunities, the many, many other wildlife
    habitats that are dependent upon national forests.

                                   watersheds

        I want focus on water and what watersheds do for us just a
    moment here with this graphic. It is interesting to note that
    of the world's water supply, .008 percent is renewable fresh
    water. This is the very water that agriculture, that humanity
    is dependent upon, in a sense, this tiny drop of the entire
    amount of water that is on the globe, and we have increasing
    urban pressures, increasing populations, and increasing uses of
    this water.
        If we could take a look at the next graphic we can see that
    the national forests are the largest single source of water,
    making up about 14 percent, and then if we take a look at all
    the forest lands of the United States, about 66 percent of the
    runoff comes from all of these lands. The fact is that the best
    water quality in the United States is coming off of our
    forested lands. These are also the anchors for many of our
    aquatic species that we have concerns over.
        It is also interesting to note that 60 percent of the
    nation's runoff occurs east of the Mississippi, and about 70
    percent of that occurs from private forest lands. The picture
    is somewhat different in the West.
        For example, in California, national forests occupy about
    20 percent of the State of California; yet, 50 percent of the
    runoff that occurs in the State of California comes off of
    National Forest System lands, and water, of course, is one of
    the issues that will be of increasing importance to all
    Americans as time marches on.

                                timber harvests

        Now, as we move through the debate, there are those that
    advocate we move to the timber harvest outputs of 10 years ago,
    and then there are those that promote zero cut. My reaction to
    that is, we need to have a little more realism in the debate.
    In fact, the budget proposals provide funding for outputs,
    which we believe are consistent with land health.
        I do not visualize timber harvests of 10 years ago, and
    also I do not visualize a wealthy nation like the United States
    and the science that we have being totally dependent upon
    third-world nations that have lesser environmental protections
    than ours, so I believe a sensible timber program is important,
    and the fact is, we have the best science, the best
    technologies in the world here in the United States, and it is
    important that we work together to move the debate forward.

                         sustainable forest management

        I would like to now move to sustainable forest management.
    I just recently returned from a trip to California where I was
    at the Eldorado National Forest, but this is a similar
    situation that I believe Senator Bennett spoke of, and I know
    in every State in the West at least we had this type of
    situation.
        This was the Cleveland fire. It occurred in 1992. We lost 2
    lives, 22,000 acres, 3,500 acres of Spotted Owl habitat, 41
    homes, and other buildings burned. It destroyed the Eldorado
    Canal, which supplied water to local communities on the
    Eldorado.
        Now, if we could take a look at the next graphic. Note the
    island that was left behind. There were several islands like
    this left behind. The reason that we have these, if you will,
    inclusions that survive is because of management practices that
    have occurred on that land, prescribed burn, those types of
    things, and we need to apply this type of technology every
    place that we can, and the fact is, that watershed, for a time,
    lost a great portion of its watershed function, and yet in the
    areas where we see the inclusions of green, the soils survived,
    watershed function was maintained at least in part, and we can
    apply these kinds of technologies and need to be applying these
    technologies every place we can, and we can afford to.
        Now, if we could take a look at the next graphic, this is
    another shot on the Eldorado National Forest. This is a before
    picture, before management practices were applied, in this
    case, thinning some level of harvest that was economic, by the
    way. Now, let us take a look at it after.
        We see we have a situation here, if we have a tough fire
    year, which we are going to have in many parts of the country
    this year, like in your State, Senator Domenici, it is
    exceedingly dry right now, we may experience a fire there, but
    it is likely that it will not be a stand-replacing fire, that,
    in fact, the next step in the management practice there would
    be to do a prescribed burn, and then enter into a routine of
    prescribed burn, and the appropriate level of management to
    move forward.
        Let us just take a look at the last one. I was at this spot
    just a couple of weeks ago, and I believe that if we could all
    get out in the field and look at some of these things that many
    of the things that we discuss in our hearings and other places
    like this that we could reach agreement. The fact is that we
    need to apply the best technologies.
        What we have on the right-hand side of the road is a fairly
    healthy situation, where we have applied the science and the
    management techniques. On the left-hand side of the road we
    basically have problems that need to be addressed and we need
    to make investments in those areas.

                            financial accountability

        I just like to spend a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, making
    some comments about accountability and financial management. I
    do not think there is another chief of the Forest Service that
    has had more hearings on financial management accountability
    than I have, and I have only been on the job for 2 years, and
    we have gotten the message, believe me, and we are in the
    process of moving forward in a variety of things. I have
    Vincette Goerl here to talk in detail about those things.
        No. 1 is, I feel it is important for the Forest Service to
    do what it has to do internally with regard to administrative
    procedures, streamlining what we can streamline before we come
    to the Congress and ask for changes. We have begun to do many
    of those things. For example, we have eliminated retroactive
    redistribution, we have reformulated work activity codes and
    management codes, we have eliminated, if you will, almost a
    million management codes that Vincette will talk about soon.
        The business of financial management and accountability
    also involves behavioral changes. You have an organization that
    has a very decentralized culture, and that is the way resource
    management should be, because watersheds and ecosystems are
    different in one part of the country than another, but the fact
    is a credit and a debit is the same wherever we go, so we are
    working hard conducting training sessions and those kinds of
    things to make sure that our accounting systems are what they
    should be.
        I was part of getting a clean financial audit for the
    Bureau of Land Management when I worked there a few years ago,
    and Vincette Goerl comes highly qualified, was part of the
    Custom Service getting a clean financial audit, is currently
    the president-elect of the D.C. Chapter of the Association of
    Government Accountants, the National Finance Chair of the
    Business and Professional Women's Club, and I have made
    financial management and accountability as an equal priority to
    resource management in the Forest Service by basically creating
    a chief financial officer side of the organization that deals
    with the business management side that Vincette Goerl is a part
    of, as well as maintaining the natural resources side of the
    program through the Associate Chief for Natural Resources and
    deputies associated with that.

                            multiple-use management

        So we have a lot of ways to go on budget structure. We want
    to work on that, but I just in closing want to say that
    multiple-use management is alive and well.
        The balances may be different, but the fact is our 192
    million acres of national forest, we have 380,000 miles of
    roads, $30 billion worth of infrastructure, 74,000 authorized
    uses, 23,000 developed recreation sites.
        We have 35 million acres of wilderness, we have 5.8 billion
    board feet of timber under contract. We graze about 2.1 million
    animal unit months. We have 960 hard-rock mining operation
    proposals that were approved in 1998. We have about 3,400
    operations, minerals operations, that we administer. We have
    about 500 energy operations, 859 million recreation visits to
    the national forest.
        What we have in this organization that oftentimes is under
    fire, is we have the best forest and rangeland research
    organization in the world. We have some of the best technical
    assistance that we provide to State agencies through our State
    and private forestry program. We have the best wildland fire
    fighting organization in the world.

                               prepared statement

        My hope is that our resource policy debates do not detract
    from the need to streamline, to focus on what is good for the
    land, and I think we all want a smooth running operation that
    is efficient, that is effective, and I am sure that is a goal
    that we share, Mr. Chairman, and with that I will ask that my
    statement be entered into the record, and we would be happy to
    answer any questions you might have.
        Senator Gorton. Both your written statement that of Mr.
    Lyons will, of course, be included in the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Mike Dombeck
        Chairman Gorton, Senator Byrd, and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to
    discuss the Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000.
        In February, I addressed our employees in Missoula Montana about
    the state of the Forest Service. I would like to review some of those
    remarks today as I discuss the proposed budget for the Forest Service.
        I am honored to have served as Chief of the Forest Service for over
    two years. During this time, I have had the pleasure to be a part of
    the continuing evolution in the direction of the Forest Service. I have
    come to appreciate that many of the conflicts we face today over
    management of natural resources are very similar to the conflicts faced
    by the agency's first Chief, Gifford Pinchot. What made the Forest
    Service unique under his leadership was a set of conservation values
    that were not always popular, but which reflected the long term
    interest of land health. Mr. Chairman, as in the days of Gifford
    Pinchot, the values put forth in the President's fiscal year 2000
    budget emphasize long term health of the land.
        In my testimony today I want to concentrate on the values of
    healthy land by elaborating on some key areas: 1) the major changes
    reflected in the President's budget that set a new leadership direction
    for the Forest Service; 2) how the Forest Service Natural Resource
    Agenda reflects these values; and 3) how we are addressing important
    accountability issues. Let me first address some overall perspectives
    about where the Forest Service has been and where the Secretary and I
    want to take it in the future.
        Over the last decade there has been a significant change in how
    society views conservation values. Many people have ceased viewing
    publicly owned resources as a warehouse of outputs to be brought to
    market and instead have begun assigning greater value to the positive
    outcomes of forest management.
        The result of such change is that we often find ourselves caught in
    the middle between competing interests. Some look to you, the Congress
    to ``fix'' the legislation that they perceive has negatively affected
    their interests. Others push to limit the number of appeals, so the
    agency can get on with producing timber or stopping timber production,
    as the case may be. Still others ask courts to resolve land use
    policies through litigation.
        Too often we find ourselves waiting for someone else to resolve our
    issues for us. I think that must end. The budget we are going to talk
    about today sets the framework for the Congress, the Administration,
    the States, local governments, and private parties to begin working
    together in a new way to collaboratively resolve conservation
    conflicts. The central premise of our approach is that by restoring and
    maintaining a healthy land base on public and private lands alike, we
    can ensure that our children, and their children's children enjoy the
    benefits of land and water.
        Mr. Chairman, with healthy watersheds as a foundation, there is
    room for a reasonable flow of outputs; timber and livestock
    specifically, but many other products also. There is and will be the
    ability to produce cleaner water. There is a land base which will allow
    us to set aside additional places untrammeled by human beings, and
    there is an ability and a necessity to preserve now and for generations
    to come, additional open spaces before such spaces are fragmented or
    degraded due to private land development, urban sprawl, and other such
    issues.
        For those who advocate a return to timber outputs of 10 years ago,
    or those who advocate a ``zero cut'' philosophy, I say it is time to
    inject realism into the debate. The President's budget provides funding
    for outputs which are consistent with land health. I can not visualize
    a circumstance when such outputs will ever be at the level of 10 years
    ago, but I say to the other side of the spectrum, timber harvest will,
    and should continue. The President's budget contains innovations that
    recognize the ability of people to restore ecosystems from those
    already degraded, using modern science and technology, where people
    have either contributed to poor land health by over using the land,
    built roads in unstable or overly steep terrain, or prevented natural
    processes such as fire. We can improve the health of these areas, and
    do so by not only allowing the removal of forest products but by
    demonstrating in some cases such activities can contribute to forest
    health. The more timber harvest contributes to ecological
    sustainability, the more predictable timber outputs will be. This
    budget presents a solid balance that if enacted will help accomplish
    these goals.
        The Forest Service serves many people. With our 192 million acres,
    383,000 miles of roads, $30 billion infrastructure, 74,000 authorized
    land uses, 23,000 developed recreation sites, tens of thousands of
    dispersed recreation sites, and 35 million acres of wilderness, the
    national forests are many things to many people. The Forest Service has
    the premier Forest and Rangeland Research organization in the world
    which is involved in research to improve land health and to improve the
    experiences enjoyed on the land by Americans.
                      specifics of the president's budget
        The President's budget creates a new focus on State and Private
    Forestry programs. Over time, our leadership capacity to assist those
    who manage the more than 500 million acres of forests outside of the
    national forest system has diminished. One of our greatest
    contributions to society will be our ability to bring people together
    to provide technical assistance and scientific information to States,
    private landowners, and other nations of the world. The fiscal year
    2000 proposed budget contains an increase of $80 million in State and
    Private Forestry, and $37 million in Forest and Rangeland Research to
    increase our involvement in this critical collaborative role. Consider
    that we have been spending about $2 billion annually to manage the 192
    million acres of national forest land, yet spend less than $200 million
    in support of the 500 million acres of State managed and privately
    owned lands.
        With this budget, support to State and locally managed lands and
    non-industrial private lands dramatically increases. The budget
    proposes $218 million for the Lands Legacy Initiative, which will make
    new tools available to work with States, tribes, local governments, and
    private partners to protect great places, to conserve open space for
    recreation, and wildlife habitat; and to preserve forest, farmlands,
    and coastal areas. This $218 million is part of the President's bold
    Government wide initiative to provide $1 billion for the Lands Legacy
    Initiative.
        The President's budget also continues support for key programs
    initiated with the fiscal year 1999 budget by targeting an increase of
    $89.4 million for the Clean Water Action Plan to maintain priority
    attention to the health of watersheds on Federal, State, and private
    lands. Let me show you two displays which graphically emphasize the
    importance healthy watersheds, not only on the National Forests, but
    from all forested lands. As the first graphic shows the total readily
    available fresh water represents less than 1 percent of the total world
    supply. It is truly a precious resource. The second chart shows that
    although water from the National Forests is important, only 14 percent
    actually originates from the National Forests. The vast majority
    originates from other forested lands in the United States. I believe
    this clearly shows the importance of the President's Clean Water Action
    Plan.
        Forest and Rangeland Research programs are an important aspect of
    emphasis in the President's budget. In addition to funds to support
    global climate issues, an additional $14 million is proposed for the
    Integrated Science for Ecosystem Challenges project which addresses
    science and technology needs related to ecological systems.
        The President is also proposing as part of this budget several new
    legislative initiatives. Most notably, a proposal similar to one put
    forward last year, to stabilize payments to States and counties by
    separating payments to counties from a reliance on receipts generated
    by commodity production. At the beginning of my testimony, I noted the
    need to manage outputs from the national forests in a manner consistent
    with land health. In doing so, emphasis for producing those outputs has
    changed. For example, today a significant number of timber sales are
    sold for stewardship purposes rather than pure commodity objectives.
    There is an increase in the sale of dead or dying timber. In these
    cases receipts are less than were experienced several years ago. I
    expect this trend to continue particularly in the west. What we are
    asking is, why should the richest country in the nation finance the
    education of rural schoolchildren on the back of a controversial
    Federal timber program? The Forest Service has a stewardship
    responsibility to collaborate with citizens to promote land health.
    Collaborative stewardship implies an obligation to help provide
    communities with economic diversity and resiliency so they are not
    dependent on the results of litigation, the whims of nature or
    unrelated social values to educate their children and pave their roads.
    We need to work together so States and counties can anticipate
    predictable payments on which to base education and road management
    decisions.
                            natural resource agenda
        The President's budget contains many important initiatives. It also
    contains a broad program of funding for management of national forest
    lands. Just one year ago I announced the Natural Resource Agenda, which
    is a comprehensive science based agenda that will lead management of
    the agency into the 21st century. As an integral partner with the
    Government Performance and Results Act, this agenda focus on four
    areas; (1) watershed health and restoration, (2) sustainable forest and
    grassland ecosystem management, (3) the national forest road system,
    and (4) recreation.
        I want to highlight briefly our emphasis in each of these areas. A
    retired Forest Service employee offered me some advice a while back. He
    said, ``if you just take care of soil and water, everything else will
    be OK.'' Multiple use does not mean we should do everything on every
    acre simply because we can. We must protect the last best places and
    restore the rest. Forest Service lands are truly the headwaters of
    America. They contain riparian, wetland, and coastal areas that are
    essential for the nation's water supply and prosperity. The President's
    budget provides an increase of $48.6 million included in programs such
    as wildlife habitat management, watershed improvements, fisheries
    habitat management, rangeland vegetation management, threatened and
    endangered species habitat management, and State and private forest
    health programs. These increases will allow the Forest Service to make
    important watershed restoration and protection efforts.
        Restoration and maintenance of watershed health is contingent on
    quality land management planning. As you know, the Committee of
    Scientists has issued final recommendations on forest planning. The
    Committee's recommendations will be used to prepare a draft planning
    rule so that future forest plans will support how we will:
      --provide an informed collaborative basis for decisions about
            management activities, protection objectives and restoration
            potential;
      --provide for the protection, maintenance, and recovery of native
            aquatic and riparian-dependent species and prevent the
            introduction and spread of nonnative species;
      --provide for monitoring to insure we accomplish our objectives in
            the most cost-effective manner;
      --include the best available science and research, in a collaborative
            manner with interested citizens; and
      --provide opportunities to link social and economic benefits to
            communities through restoration strategies.
        I believe our new planning approach will be invaluable in breaking
    the forest planning gridlock that is hampering national forest
    management in so many areas.
        A second area of the Natural Resource Agenda is sustainable forest
    and grassland management. The President is proposing a billion dollar
    initiative to protect open space, benefit urban forests, and improve
    the quality of life for the 80 percent of Americans living in urban and
    suburban areas. Through sustainable forest and grassland management,
    the Forest Service will play an essential role in accomplishment of
    this initiative. The President's budget provides an increase of $113
    million in State and Private and Research programs which are integral
    to protecting and restoring the lands and waters that sustain us. We
    will collaborate with State fish and wildlife agencies, State
    foresters, tribes, and others to develop conservation and stewardship
    plans for an additional 740,000 acres of non-industrial private
    forestland. We will help States protect an estimated 135,000 additional
    acres of forestland through acquisitions and conservation easements. We
    will acquire environmentally sensitive lands through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, and we will include nearly 800 more communities in
    efforts to conserve urban and community forests. In addition, 300,000
    more hours of conservation training will be provided to local
    communities.
        Mr. Chairman, I am truly excited about budgetary emphasis in
    sustainable forest and grassland management through cooperation and
    collaboration. This emphasis will carry into many programs including
    fire management where we will employ fire as a tool to give priority to
    high-risk wildland/urban interface areas where people, homes and
    personal property are at risk. An excellent example of this need can be
    understood if we examine the 1992 Cleveland Fire on the Eldorado
    National Forest. This fire tragically claimed two lives, destroyed
    22,500 acres including 3,400 acres of Spotted Owl habitat, and burned
    41 homes and other buildings. In addition, the fire destroyed the El
    Dorado Canal which supplied water to the local communities of Pollock
    Pines and Camino. In examining this fire, we found there were several
    areas of large trees which survived despite the intense flames. Here
    topsoils were not destroyed and watershed functions continued, at least
    in part. These trees survived because prescribed burns over the
    previous 13 years had removed fuels sufficiently to prevent intense
    heat that would have otherwise destroyed these trees.
        Based on the lessons learned about the benefits of this active
    management, the Eldorado National Forest identified 17 other areas
    where forest health projects could avert similar fire disasters through
    the use of innovative contracting techniques which involved selling
    commercial timber as well as removing small diameter trees. The timber
    stand which was left provided extensive wildlife and fisheries habitat
    and substantially reduced the fire hazard. Not only was forest health
    improved, but the timber sales produced positive economic results. The
    agency collected $3 million in receipts from an investment of $430,000.
    When the positive effect on the economy is considered this effort to
    protect land health resulted in a total economic benefit of $4,300 per
    acre on an investment of $165 per acre. Let me show you some graphics
    which highlight this very successful effort. I don't want to portray a
    situation where all such circumstances will result in positive economic
    return, but I do want to point out how in many cases we have the chance
    to improve forest health and support the local economy.
        As a result of this and other experiences we understand that
    resources must be devoted to using fire and other tools, such as
    thinning, to reduce accumulated fuels adjacent to urban and wilderness
    areas alike, to aid threatened and endangered species, and to help
    lower long term costs of suppressing wildfires and protect public
    safety. The stewardship end-result contracting authority which this
    Subcommittee included in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act, gives
    us similar opportunities to employ innovative contracting techniques to
    improve forest health.
        Now I would like to turn to one of the more challenging aspects of
    the Natural Resource Agenda. That involves management of the National
    Forest Road System. As you know, on February 11, I announced an interim
    suspension of road construction in most roadless areas of the national
    forest system. We offer this time-out to reduce the controversy of
    roadless area entries in order to reduce damage to a road system which
    is already in disrepair.
        A personal source of frustration is that few people or interest
    groups are focused on the issue of our existing road system as opposed
    to the roadless area issue. Yet if we care about restoring the
    ecological fabric of the landscape and the health of our watersheds, we
    must concentrate on areas that are roaded in addition to those that are
    not. Let me show you a display which I believe clearly displays the
    need to focus attention on the existing road system, not roadless
    areas. As the chart shows, of the total estimated road program that
    would have occurred in the absence of a suspension only 262 of 9,210
    miles, or 3 percent of roads planned for reconstruction or construction
    would be affected, and only 221 million board feet of 5.7 billion board
    feet, or 4 percent of the planned timber sale volume would be affected.
        The President's budget proposes a $22.6 million increase in the
    road budget, primarily for maintenance. The agency has an estimated
    road maintenance backlog of over $8 billion. Meanwhile we are only
    maintaining 18 percent of our roads to the safety and environmental
    standards to which they were built. With the proposed funding level in
    the fiscal year 2000 budget, we will increase by 50 percent from 1998,
    the miles of road to be decommissioned or stabilized. We will increase
    the percentage of forest roads maintained to standard from 18 percent
    to 24 percent.
        With roads that could encircle the globe many times, our road
    system is largely complete. Our challenge is to shrink the system to a
    size we can afford to maintain while still providing for efficient and
    safe public access in a manner that protects land health.
        Over the year, we will develop a long term road policy with three
    primary objectives: (1) develop new analytical tools to help managers
    determine where, when or if to build new roads, (2) decommission old,
    unneeded, unauthorized, and other roads that degrade the environment,
    and (3) selectively upgrade certain roads to help meet changing use
    patterns on forests and grasslands.
        Management of roads is very important to local communities that
    rely heavily on these roads for livelihoods and rural transportation. I
    expect decisions about local roads to be made by local managers working
    with local people and others who use or care about our road system. We
    will obviously continue to provide access to and through forests.
    However, it is clear that we simply cannot afford our existing road
    system.
        The fourth element of the Natural Resource Agenda involves
    recreation. The President's budget provides strong support to the
    recreation program. With appropriated funds totalling $288 million, and
    additional funds provided from the recreation fee demonstration project
    receipts and the ten percent road and trail fund, this program will
    continue to provide strong support to the 800 million annual visitors
    which we expect to increase to 1.2 billion over the next 50 years.
        The Forest Service recreation strategy focuses on providing
    customer service and opportunities for all people. The successful
    recreation fee demonstration program has served many people at the
    sites operated under the program through improved visitor experiences
    and repair and upgrade facilities which were badly in need of
    attention. I strongly support continuation of this program. I do want
    to pass on one caution lest this program is viewed as an answer for
    reducing future recreation discretionary funds. The recreation fee
    demonstration program serves many people in a limited number of
    recreation sites. The Forest Service recreation program is highly
    dispersed. It is the place for a family drive or hike on a Sunday
    afternoon, a weekend camping trip, or a week long grueling hike in the
    rugged backcountry. Many of these experiences do not lend themselves to
    a recreation fee demonstration type program. In fact, less than 10
    percent of forest recreation visits occur at fee demonstration sites.
    As the backyard playground for many Americans, it is essential we
    maintain a recreation program that allows enjoyment of the national
    forests without charge in addition to fee programs in limited areas.
        A key part of enhancing this dispersed recreation is through our
    wilderness management program. The President's budget includes an
    increase of $7 million for protection and restoration of natural
    conditions in wilderness and to mitigate the impacts of high use areas
    adjacent to large population centers. The wilderness legacy is a crown
    jewel. I am committed to increasing the Forest Service commitment to
    the Wilderness Act and intend to give more emphasis through increased
    land management planning and re-establishment of a national wilderness
    field advisory group.
        Each of the four emphasis areas of the Natural Resource Agenda
    links directly to one or more of the goals of the Results Act Strategic
    Plan. I am pleased that the President's budget supports this plan for
    moving forward.
                         forest service accountability
        Successful implementation of the President's initiatives and the
    Natural Resource Agenda is dependent on having the trust of Congress
    and the American people. To be trusted, we have to be accountable for
    our performance. We have to be able to identify where our funds are
    being spent, and what America is receiving in return. We have to do
    this as efficiently as possible in order to assure that a maximum
    amount of funds are spent on the ground for intended purposes without
    being diverted for unnecessary overhead.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Forest Service has had problems with
    accountability in the past. We have been the subject of more than 20
    oversight reports and internal studies. We have been resoundingly
    criticized for having poor decision making, either bloated or
    inaccurate overhead costs, and non-responsive accounting systems. While
    some of this may be exaggerated, I fully acknowledge that some is true.
    We've got the message. We will improve dramatically. Let me highlight
    several initiatives that are now underway.
        First and most importantly, I have made it clear through
    organization changes and personal statements that the business and
    financial management functions of this agency are equally as important
    as attention to managing the resources. I have placed business
    management professionals in operations and financial management
    positions. We have established a Chief Operating Officer at the
    Associate Chief level which reports directly to me, thus placing our
    business management functions on an operating level equal to that of
    our natural resource functions. We have brought in a new Chief
    Financial Officer at the Deputy Chief level to implement the Foundation
    Financial Information System. This is her top priority, with a goal of
    achieving a clean financial opinion from the General Accounting Office
    as soon as possible.
        It is also time to reform our budget structure. I want to work with
    the Congress and the Administration to design a budget structure that
    reflects the work we do and the Results Act Strategic Plan on which the
    Natural Resource Agenda is based. The current budget structure does not
    support the integrated work necessary to restore and maintain land
    health while promoting ecological sustainability.
        In order to ensure accountability while implementing a new budget
    structure, we will employ land health performance measures to
    demonstrate that we can have a simplified budget and improve water
    quality, protect and restore more habitat, and improve forest ecosystem
    health.
        In fiscal year 2000 we will begin to implement reforms to our trust
    funds. We will examine alternatives for trust fund management in the
    future to avoid unintended incentives to pursue forest management
    activities that are not consistent with land health objectives.
        For the first time, at the direction of Congress, we have developed
    and implemented standard definitions for indirect costs which are in
    full compliance with the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
    These definitions have been reviewed by several oversight groups. Based
    on these definitions, for the first time we have accurately determined
    indirect expenses for the agency, which during fiscal year 2000 we
    project to be 18.9 percent.
        As you know, the issue of indirect costs, often referred to as
    overhead, received extensive attention during the 105th Congress, as
    did the poor quality of our financial system and records. I want to
    make a specific request as your Committee examines our budget in the
    coming year. I ask for your patience and support in rectifying much of
    our accountability problems. The Forest Service's financial management
    and reporting of overhead took a decade or more to fall into disrepair.
    It will take more than a year to fix the problem. Let me emphasize that
    we are devoting extensive resources to implementing new financial
    systems, improving our audit processes, and improving decision making.
    The resources we devote to make these fixes involves expenditures of an
    overhead type nature. As we concentrate on cleaning up our problems, we
    need to have flexibility without legislated limitations which could
    prevent us from being successful.
        In my testimony today, I have reviewed the President's initiatives,
    discussed the Natural Resource Agenda, and described our intent to
    improve agency accountability. In conclusion, I want to say that a
    Forest Service that meets the needs of the American people and restores
    and preserves the health of the nations forests and rangelands, is a
    goal we all strive for. I'll leave you with some thoughts based on Aldo
    Leopold's Sand County Almanac:

              Let us recommit ourselves to an invigorated nation and land
            ethic. An ethic that recognized that we cannot meet the needs
            of people without first securing the health, diversity, and
            productivity of our lands and waters. An ethic that understands
            the need to reconnect our communities--both urban and rural--to
            the lands and waters that sustain them. An ethic that respects
            that the choices we make today influence the legacy that we
            bequeath to our children and their children's children.

        That concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.

                       wood education and resource center

        Senator Gorton. Now, Senator Byrd, why do you not go on
    with your questions. I have extensive ones, so I am going to
    wait until last, and other members can stay if they wish, but
    you can go ahead.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you very much.
        Chief Dombeck, the President's budget request includes I
    believe $1.5 million for the Wood Education and Research
    Center, near Princeton, West Virginia, as part of the State and
    private forestry budget, but the current funding for the Center
    is $2.5 million. Now, does that mean that there is a reduction
    of $1 million from its fiscal year 1999 budget?
        Mr. Dombeck. Let me ask Janice McDougle, who is responsible
    for that program area, to give you the details on that,
    Senator.
        Senator Byrd. All right.
        Ms. McDougle. Yes, Senator, there is a reduction of $1
    million from fiscal year 1999's budget. What I would like to
    say about this is that in 1998 we had a budget in our economic
    action programs of about $11 million. In 1999, it went from $11
    million to $16 million, and we are appreciative of that, but 60
    percent of that $16 million were earmarks. This is a national
    program that serves many forest-dependent programs, and it does
    not go very far.
        We think that with the help of the partners that we have at
    the Center we can leverage those dollars for 2000.
        Senator Byrd. I believe the $2.5 million is what I added,
    is it not----
        Ms. McDougle. That is correct.
        Senator Byrd [continuing]. For the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations.
        Ms. McDougle. Yes, sir.

         institute of hardwood technology transfer and applied research

        Senator Byrd. Now what you have here, you formed a
    partnership between the Wood Education and Resource Center and
    the Princeton Research Lab, which is located near the Center.
    This partnership is called the Institute of Hardwood Technology
    Transfer and Applied Research.
        We have been having a lot of problems with the Wood
    Education and Resource Center, that was not making a go of it,
    so I worked with the Forest Service to have the Forest Service
    try to make something out of it that would recompense the
    taxpayers for the money they invested in it.
        I cannot understand how we can do that if you are going to
    reduce the $2.5 million that we had there last year, meaning
    fiscal year 1999, reduce it by a million dollars, to $1.525
    million. I cannot understand how we are going to do that.
        Ms. McDougle. It is our understanding, as has been in the
    past, that eventually the Center would be self-sufficient. We
    think we have made substantial progress since the fiscal year
    1999 budget in terms of partnerships. We have developed
    partnerships with the Department of Energy----
        Senator Byrd. I am interested in this one item right here.
    Tell us about the partners in the Institute.
        Ms. McDougle. What is it that you want to know? I am sorry.
        Senator Byrd. Well, I asked a question. Please explain the
    Institute for Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research
    concept, and the partnership between the Princeton Research Lab
    and the Wood Education and Resource Center. You say we think we
    are making a lot of progress with partners in the various
    institutes, or whatever, and I asked the question, are there
    any other partners in this institute?
        Ms. McDougle. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. What are they?

                             institute partnerships

        Ms. McDougle. The Department of Energy, West Virginia Army
    National Guard, West Virginia Forestry Association, West
    Virginia Wood, the technology center, and the University of
    Morgantown.
        Senator Byrd. How many people do you have working here at
    this Wood Education and Resource Center?
        Ms. McDougle. I am not sure of the number we have there at
    this time.
        Senator Byrd. Well, if we do not know how many people we
    have there, how can we say we can stand a $1 million reduction?
        Ms. McDougle. We believe that we can maintain the Center
    and leverage those dollars in fiscal year 2000.
        Mr. Dombeck. What we can do, Senator, is we will be happy
    to provide you a breakdown of the partnerships, the
    contributions, as well as the employee roster.
        Senator Byrd. Would you come to my office and talk with me
    about this item?
        Mr. Dombeck. I would be happy to.
        Senator Byrd. I want to understand why we are reducing this
    by $1 million. We are just starting. We just put one foot
    forward this year. I am trying to make something out of this
    particular center. The Princeton Research Lab has been there
    for probably 30 years, the wood marketing research center, and
    I got the first $250,000, or perhaps it was $400,000, for it
    more than 30 years ago, and that has been doing a good job.
        But then we added this other facility, it was not paying
    its way, and I suggested the Forest Service take it over and
    work with the two facilities and see if we cannot make some
    money there for the Forest Service, and here we start out the
    very first year after we have created this complex, the very
    first year we cut it $1 million. That is not going to fly here.
    It is not going to fly, not here in this subcommittee. We have
    to have some explanation for that, do you understand that? Do
    you?
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. All right. So let us have a little visit in
    my office. I want you to explain this in detail to me. Now, do
    I have time for one more question, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Gorton. You certainly do.

                          monongahela national forest

        Senator Byrd. I want to pick up on what you were saying
    about watershed restoration, Mr. Dombeck. The watersheds of the
    Monongahela National Forest have been degraded by past logging
    practices and wild fires, which have resulted in heavy loads of
    fine sediments clogging its streams.
        Restoration of these watersheds is important to improving
    the wild trout populations and attendant recreational
    opportunities. Almost 80 percent of West Virginia's native
    trout streams lies within the Monongahela National Forest.
        The Monongahela National Forest has identified 25
    watersheds that need to be assessed for restoration needs. The
    State of West Virginia has identified four watersheds partly
    within the Monongahela National Forest that need restoration.
    The Monongahela National Forest has spent a total of $2.1
    million in the past 2 years on watershed restoration projects.
        Now, I commend you on your emphasis on the need for water
    supply and pointing out that a very high percentage of the
    water supply that we can use that is potable and drinkable
    comes from the national forest. Is that what you said?
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. The Monongahela National Forest is one of the
    Forest Service units that desperately needs these dollars to
    correct old problems and restore some of the important fish and
    aquatic resources in West Virginia. While we have started to
    make progress in restoring these watersheds, you still have a
    way to go.
        How much have you recommended as an increase in watershed
    improvements in your budget request?
        Mr. Dombeck. Nationwide, the watershed health and
    restoration items specifically are about $48 million. Now, I
    also want to point out that many of the other areas that
    influence this, and this relates to our budget structure like
    the roads program----

                             watershed improvements

        Senator Byrd. I do not want to hear that right now, and I
    do not mean to be discourteous to you. I only have a very
    limited amount of time. What is your total increase for
    watershed improvements in this budget request?
        Mr. Dombeck. About 13 percent for watershed health and
    restoration.
        Senator Byrd. In dollars how much is that?
        Mr. Dombeck. About $48 million.
        Senator Byrd. How much is that over 1999?
        Mr. Dombeck. It is about a $10 million increase.
        Senator Byrd. $10 million. Now, what is the process for
    determining which regions will get a portion of the increase?
        Mr. Dombeck. What we are involved in with out budget
    process is taking a look at the regional allocations, and I can
    give you some breakdowns of regional allocations, but I might
    ask Gloria Manning, who runs the national forest system, to
    give you that breakdown.

                          regional allocation criteria

        Ms. Manning. Senator Byrd, what we have is, we have
    allocation criteria that the regions got together with us and
    set the criteria. It is based on the resources that are there,
    the population, condition of the resources, and we allocate
    from the Washington office, based on that, to the regional
    office, and then the regional office, in turn, takes their
    criteria, which we do not have with us today, but we can
    furnish you, to decide which forests get what percent.
        Also, I would like to add that we are working with the
    States, once they identify the priority watersheds, to focus
    that money that we do have to those priority watersheds.
        Senator Byrd. All right. So much for the process. How much
    is the region, I believe it is region number nine, is it not,
    the Monongahela? Are we in region number nine?
        Ms. Manning. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. How much is going to that region?
        Ms. Manning. I do not know the percentage that would
    actually go to--the total percentage, but in fiscal year 1999
    it was $3.667 million.
        Senator Byrd. So now you have asked for a $10 million
    increase in watershed improvements, right?
        Ms. Manning. Right.
        Senator Byrd. How much of that is going to region number
    nine?
        Ms. Manning. I do not have the breakdown for that. I will
    have to get that to you.
        Senator Byrd. Well, do you not expect questions like that
    from this subcommittee?
        Ms. Manning. Yes, sir; we do, but I only had it broken down
    by the whole category, which is soil, water, and air, with me.
        Senator Byrd. Well, this is another area we need to talk
    about. I am glad to hear your emphasis on the importance of
    water, and our need for cleaning up the nation's water, and I
    want to know more about what you are doing in region number
    nine, in particular. So thank you very much, for the moment.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have a change
    going on in the management of the forest, recreation. America
    wants to recreate here, they do not want to harvest a renewable
    crop. We understand that.

                                 forest access

        But does America know that they cannot get in the forest
    anyway, Mr. Dombeck? I mean they are limited to the access on
    the forest, all of America. I mean if they have to operate
    under the same rules that we do, who live locally, is that
    true?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, one of the things with the National
    Forest is that you do not have to worry about no trespassing
    signs, and from the standpoint of that sort of limitation,
    there are accesses open. I am sure you have a follow-up in----
        Senator Burns. Well, no, but I am OK with the no
    trespassing signs, but----
        Mr. Dombeck. You are talking about vehicle access.
        Senator Burns [continuing]. There are trespassing signs,
    are there not? There are times that you cannot get on the
    forest. Times when nobody can get on the forest.
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, there are limitations with regard to
    fire closure, with activities that may result in resource
    damage, and things like that.

                                     roads

        Senator Burns. But the majority of the people who would
    like to--there are some people who would like to enjoy the
    forest and cannot get on it, because large areas are closed.
    This increase in the road fund that you are getting, you are
    going to close roads, is that correct? You are going to
    continue to close roads, and remove culverts as seen in those
    photos?
        Mr. Dombeck. There will be some road closures through the
    local road management programs, that is correct.
        Senator Burns. In other words you are jerking culverts out,
    you are building tank traps, you do not want any access onto
    our forest lands.
        Mr. Dombeck. The objective, though, is looking at the
    resource protection and the long-term benefits of the land.
        Senator Burns. We are going to put that ahead of access for
    the rest of America. Now, this all sounds funny in Chicago, and
    New York, and Philadelphia, that this is your land, we are
    going to let you visit it, and we are going to let you enjoy
    it, and we are going to manage these resources, yet when they
    go out there, they cannot get on it. Some can, there are
    hikers, but some of the older people cannot get on it, because
    you cannot drive on those roads, they are closed off.
        What I am saying is, as a renewable resource we are growing
    more wood than we are cutting. I realize that there are some
    areas for watershed health that should be protected and not
    developed in those areas. I do not want to get that hard, but
    all of America cannot get on that forest.
        We have some people out West, Mike, to be right honest with
    you, that will be just like an old Yellowstone bear, we will
    have to stand alongside the road and let some of these folks
    pitch us a hamburger every 5 years just to live.
        There is no balance here. Jim, I will talk to you later.
    There is no balance here. That is what I am saying. I mean any
    time that you allow this to go on on your national forests and
    allow this kind of erosion to take place, because you do not
    want access on there, I think is a little extreme.
        We have some folks out there, some conservation people and
    water management people that are very concerned about this. I
    would be happy to work with you on this. I am trying to be as
    nice as I possibly can.

                               prepared statement

        By the way, I have a statement I want to submit for the
    record.
        Senator Gorton. It will be done.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
        Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee
    this morning. As you are aware, we have had a number of hearings on
    this budget request in both the full Energy and Natural Resource
    Committee and the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management.
        At the risk of boring the witnesses, I want to reiterate my concern
    with the direction the Forest Service has been taking recently. Montana
    has vast quantities of our land tied up under the ownership of the
    Forest Service, the BLM and the National Park Service. In the past
    these agencies were generally tolerated as being good neighbors. They
    were our friends and we were able to make a living off the land. We
    harvested timber, we extracted minerals and we were able to support our
    communities with the money we made off of oil and gas. They weren't
    glamorous jobs, but they paid well and they allowed Montanans to make
    an honest living. They made Montana what it is today.
        Now the Forest Service, under pressure from groups who have never
    set foot in Montana, is drastically changing how we use the land. Or
    rather, how we don't use the land. We can't log, we can't mine, we
    can't explore for oil and gas. In a nutshell, they have declared an
    economic war on the West. Don't think it is a coincidence that
    Montana's per capita income is now at the absolute bottom of the heap
    when compared to the rest of the United States. Natural resource jobs
    were the best paying jobs in the State. Now they are gone.
        The Forest Service is also pushing recreationists of the land. They
    have shut down numerous areas to snowmobiles. Now they are working on
    shutting off all off road travel throughout Montana, North and South
    Dakota. I have even heard plans of restricting hikers out in Oregon.
    When will it stop?
        I asked Chief Dombeck a very simple question when I met with him
    earlier this year. I asked; if they want to leave the land as God
    intended, then why do they need to give them any money? They aren't
    managing the land. In our Energy and Natural Resource Committee
    hearings it was pointed out that fewer Forest Service dollars are
    actually spent on the land each year, despite increasing budget
    requests. What are we getting for our money?
        I challenge you to travel to Libby, Montana and explain to the
    taxpayers up there why we should increase the Forest Service's budget.
    Libby is on the verge of becoming a ghost town. Used to be a booming
    timber town. Now the timber industry is virtually gone and the Forest
    Service's main action seems to be to keep us off the land. They put up
    gates, rip out roads and culverts, and stop recreation. Now, Secretary
    Babbitt wants to radically increase the amount of land that gets burned
    though prescribed fires. Now we are supposed to give the Forest Service
    funding to burn the lumber that could keep our towns alive. It is
    ridiculous and I am not going to stand here and watch it without a
    fight.
        I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to really look at
    what is happening. We all know that, nationally, it is more popular to
    say we are protecting everything, but look at what is going on. We have
    an agency out of control that is running my State, and many others,
    into the ground. It's time for a change in direction and I will work my
    hardest to see that we begin those changes through the Appropriations
    process. This administration is too arrogant to comply with Congress'
    direction if we do it any other way.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the
    committee.

                                    beetles

        Senator Burns. That is where I am coming from. As far as
    Mr. Bennett is concerned here on the beetles, we have been
    arguing about beetles on the Yaak and the Kookenai for 10 years
    and got nothing done, 10 years, and he thinks he is going to
    get it done the first year, according to Mr. Lyons. I will
    guarantee you that he is not going to get his done. It will
    burn. It will burn first.

                               payments to states

        As far as the net proceeds that goes back to counties, that
    is just a tax that the Government pays for owning land in that
    county. Every other taxpayer pays taxes, too.
        Now, if you want to go out and explain to that person that
    lives in, let us say, Polebridge, MT, we are going to rely on
    an annual appropriations for a payment sort of like PILT. You
    are familiar with PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, that the BLM
    participates in if we are going to rely on that road, and on
    those proceeds, we need a guarantee the Government will fully
    fund the program. I will guarantee you this Government has
    never funded PILT to the 100 percent of what it has authorized
    yet. Not yet.
        You get some accountant out there at the Forest Service
    that says, ``Well, maybe we ought to use that money for
    something else, that we really do not want to pay our amount of
    taxes to the local government.''
        Balance, that is what I am looking for. I am not going to
    go into anything specific, but I am looking for some balance.
    If you want to manage this like a park, let us turn the forests
    over to the National Park Service. We have parks and we have
    forests, and forests are managed for multiple use, and that is
    not what is happening now. I am sorry. I just get more and more
    disgusted every day.
        Now, you said you wanted a year. Give me a year. Well, old
    friend, your year is about up. We are in two. I just want to
    see some balance, that is all I want to see. You hold up that
    thing on Puget Sound on tree disappearance. Tell those people
    to move. Is anybody going to go out there and tell those people
    to move?
        On those trees, any time that you see an increase of
    people, you are going to see the loss of trees sometimes. You
    can put up the same land SAT here in Washington, DC.

                                 forest access

        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife can go out there and tell you
    what they--you cannot keep them off the forest, but they can
    keep everything off the forest. You want to put them grizzles
    down there. I will tell you what, it is pretty sad--I just want
    to give you a for instance on what this has caused up at
    Whitefish and Kalispell, MT.
        When a man stands there on his front porch on his land,
    with a little old video camera and watch wolves carry off his
    calf crop, 25 cows and 30 calves this spring, and there is
    nothing he can do about it, and he only runs 175 cows. Do you
    want to put a face on something? I will put a face on it. He
    took pictures of it. The director of NASA sat right there and
    watched that same film.
        He said, ``Why don't you shoot the wolf?'' Well, No. 1,
    there are only six of them. Of course, six rounds could do a
    lot of work. But you cannot do it. The people that live there,
    is there no feeling for the people who live there? None. We are
    not there according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. We were
    just kind of born there. But I am looking for some balance,
    Mike, and it is not there. I am very, very upset about this. I
    look at this, and this is stupidity, out and out stupidity.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will find something to ask a
    question about pretty soon. But that is what you are going to
    get your road money for is to dig more holes in the Earth and
    make tank traps. If you want to be run like a park, we will put
    you under the park department. We do not need two different
    outfits out there.
        Senator Gorton. I am going to go back and forth. I am going
    to go to Senator Kohl, who has only a relatively few questions,
    and another engagement.
        Senator Kohl.

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

        Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unlike other members
    of this subcommittee whose States have extensive Federal forest
    land, 90 percent of the forest land in Wisconsin is not
    federally owned.
        In addition, in the State of Wisconsin, forest lands are
    owned by more than a quarter of a million private owners, and
    so the Forest Service cooperative programs of State and private
    forestry are of a great interest to me.

                                   gypsy moth

        I would like to ask you a question about the Gypsy Moth.
    This year we are facing a serious problem with the spread of
    Gypsy Moth across Wisconsin and much of the Northeast. In the
    past Gypsy Moth infestations have not been a problem for
    Wisconsin.
        Our harsh winters have usually been too severe for the
    moths and their larvae to survive; however, the past few mild
    winters have resulted in a dramatic increase in Gypsy Moth
    population that has been devastating trees across Eastern
    Wisconsin.
        In 1998, 18 counties in Wisconsin were guaranteed and
    another 13 counties were in transition. In 1999, it is
    anticipated that more than half of the State will be affected
    by Gypsy Moth and will require traps and treatment sites. So my
    question to you is: What is the Forest Service doing to slow
    the spread of Gypsy Moth?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, overall we have made significant
    investments in research and are making progress with biological
    controls, like a fungus agent that works with the control, but
    also working with States in applying the technologies. In fact,
    I will ask Janice McDougle, from our State and Private Program
    to elaborate on the Gypsy Moth program.
        Janice.
        Ms. McDougle. Senator, in 1998, the Forest Service was
    appropriated $3.5 million for our Slow-the-Spread program. In
    1999 we got a little over $4 million. The President's budget
    for fiscal year 2000 is the first time that, if appropriated,
    we will be fully funded to address this issue.
        This program is one that we are extremely proud of. It has
    been able to reduce and delay the speed of the Gypsy Moth
    spread by 60 percent. It is wildly popular with the States,
    with the regional and national planning boards, the National
    Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National
    Association of State Foresters, and American Nursery and
    Landscape Association, who also fully support the full funding
    of the $8 million. Without that we have learned that we cannot
    be effective in reducing the spread.
        Senator Kohl. All right. I have requested funds for forest
    health management programs, and if the subcommittee agrees, and
    I hope they will with those additional funds, then I hope that
    you will put this money to good use in working to prevent the
    spread of Gypsy Moth, and I think you feel that way, too.
        Ms. McDougle. Yes. Thank you.

                              regional office move

        Senator Kohl. Last question. As you may know I have had
    concerns over the proposal which reappeared in this year's
    budget submission to move the Forest Service's regional office
    from Milwaukee to Madison. I am surprised to see this again.
        As I understand it, the GSA has addressed your recent
    concerns about rent, and that by fiscal year 2000 the rent in
    Milwaukee will be reduced by 18 percent. Does the Forest
    Service have any current plans with respect to relocating the
    Milwaukee office?
        Mr. Dombeck. Senator, not at this time. In fact, Tom
    Hamilton, who is the Director of the Forest Products Laboratory
    in Madison, as well as Regional Forester Bob Jacobs, have
    withdrawn that proposal. So I assume if any additional activity
    occurs in that, while we will make sure that your staff is
    involved, and I assume that that dialogue will occur locally.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
    allowing me to ask these questions.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett?
        Senator Bennett. Does Senator Stevens want to come in here
    and----
        Senator Stevens. I would, if you would allow me. I only
    have two questions.
        Senator Gorton. All right.

                           tongass record of decision

        Senator Stevens. Mr. Lyons, I understand you issued a
    decision yesterday, a Final Record of Decision [ROD]. Let me
    see if I can summarize what I understand it to be, that you
    have issued a Final Record of Decision, rather than deciding
    the appeals before you and remanding the plans of the chief
    forester.
        I understand you have revised the 1979 plan for the
    Tongass, and you believe that there is no further need for
    public review or comment or a national environmental impact
    statement [EIS], because your decision yesterday replaces the
    regional forester's 1997 decision in its entirety; thus, in
    effect, the regional forester's 1997 decision is nullified as
    if it never existed. Would you say that is a fair summation of
    what you have done?
        Mr. Lyons. No, that is not quite accurate, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Tell me what is wrong.
        Mr. Lyons. We actually did decide the appeals that were
    pending. There were 33 appeals pending on the 1997 ROD that was
    issued by the regional forester at the time, Phil Janek, but we
    elected to rewrite and issue a new ROD simply to have a
    comprehensive record and to show in context how we had
    addressed all those appeals issues.
        Senator Stevens. Is that a revision of the 1979 plan?
        Mr. Lyons. It is a revision of the 1997 ROD. The 1979 plan,
    I suppose that would be accurate.
        Senator Stevens. The Record of Decision.
        Mr. Lyons. It is a modification of the 1997 ROD that was
    issued by----
        Senator Stevens. What happens to the 1979 plan?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, this supersedes--this is the Final Record
    of Decision on that plan.
        Senator Stevens. It is the Final Record of Decision, so
    your action really nullifies everything that has taken place
    since that time, right?
        Mr. Lyons. No, sir; it does not. It is a response to the
    appeals that have been raised, so what it does is it modifies
    some of the decisions that were made in 1997, and then renders
    a final decision based on the appeals of the 1997 decision.
        So it is not a totally new document in any way. It is
    simply a modification responding to the appeals, taking into
    account the issues that were raised in the 1997 EIS.

                           tongass timber reform act

        Senator Stevens. Well, this is the appropriations
    committee. Let me put it this way. The regional forester's
    decision in 1997 has been pending now for 2 years. It is my
    judgment that what you have done is you have revised the 1979
    plan. This is 1999. We have been working on that now, you have
    been working on that for 20 years. This is April 15. This is
    tax day. This is the day people pay their taxes. You spent $13
    million, and now you have taken action which is contrary to the
    Tongass Timber Reform Act, and you have taken action in a way
    that unfairly deprives these people an opportunity to be heard.
        I really do not have any more questions. I just want to
    make a statement to you. I am sorry that I agreed to clear your
    nomination. You and I had a talk, and you told me you were
    going to be fair to people in Alaska. I think this is the most
    unfair decision I have seen in my 31 years in the Senate.
        I have never seen a man destroy the lives of people as much
    as you have in the Tongass. I can tell you, as long as I am
    here, you will not be cleared for anything again. I was at the
    Interior Department at one time, as you know, and the concepts
    of integrity, honesty, and judgment are just absolutely
    frustrated by what you did yesterday.
        I can tell you, as far as I am concerned, I am going to do
    everything I can to reduce the appropriations for the Forest
    Service, maybe even transfer it to the Interior Department. You
    have destroyed the timber industry in my State, and we have no
    need for a Forest Service without a timber industry. You are a
    division of recreation now. There is no longer any
    justification for the existing Forest Service, and I intend to
    offer some amendments along those lines--severe reductions in
    this Forest Service.
        I urge you all to study it, $13 million spent on the
    process was totally eliminated by the decision yesterday which
    revised a plan that was put forward but never approved in 1979.
    I am sorry, but I find it impossible to ask questions of a
    person that would make a decision like that.
        Senator Gorton. Well, Senator Bennett, now it is your turn.

                               payments to states

        Senator Bennett. Maybe I should have gone first and let
    that come later. Let me raise a philosophical question that may
    not be as incendiary as either Senator Burns or Senator
    Stevens, but in your testimony you discussed the
    administration's proposal to decouple the 25 percent fund from
    timber sale receipts, and I think the comment was that the
    timber program should not finance the education of the nation's
    rural school children.
        I am sympathetic with that philosophic point of view, that
    while we have challenges for education, for the nation's rural
    school children, and we look for money wherever we can find it,
    and I am sure that is the attitude that drove this original
    decision, whenever it was made, I can understand that sometimes
    the connection between the two gets a little tenuous.
        The philosophical problem I have is this, if education is
    going to be primarily a local financial responsibility, it
    should obviously make sense to keep the local economy as strong
    as possible, and the continual destruction of the local
    economy, particularly with respect to loggers, truck drivers,
    and mill workers, as the timber sales are cut back, puts that
    much of a bigger educational burden on the local school
    districts.
        So my plea to you, and I would like your reactions once
    again, there are no actions that Government can take that do
    not produce side effects.

                           balanced forest management

        While many times all of us love to give speeches about how
    pure our motives are and how wonderful our actions are, all of
    us are subject to the criticism that we do not pay enough
    attention to the side effects, and the desire to be responsive
    to the environmental groups that have a religious objection to
    logging may play well in certain circumstances, but the side
    effects are to destroy the economies of these rural areas, and
    then raise the issue of, well, what do you do about education
    for their children and the impact, the very human impact, of
    these economic decisions.
        Mr. Dombeck, you stressed that multiple-use is alive and
    well in the modern forest service, and I am sure you have
    gotten now the flavor of those of us who represent States where
    timber sales are important, and they are not nearly as
    important to me in Utah as they are in some other States, but
    you get the frustration, I am sure, that comes as we see these
    kinds of situations on the ground.
        I agree with you that we all ought to get on the ground. I
    have gone on the ground. I have gone through the Forest Service
    by horseback. I still remember. Certain portions of my
    posterior remind me from time to time. I am not used to riding
    horses for the length of time that I did.
        I have been out on BLM land, and quite frankly I have seen
    where Federal land management practices are less than optimum,
    and that in many cases, land management practices on private
    land exceed the benefit of land management practices on Federal
    land, where the land is healthier if it is not in Federal
    hands, where the land is healthier if it is in the hands of
    those who are decried as predators and exploiters.
        There is more education, there is more wildlife, and there
    is more diversity, bio-diversity, on many of the privately
    managed lands in my State than there are on the federally
    managed lands, and the frustration that comes out of economic
    destruction with some of the timber processes, and the land
    degradation, leave some of us with the sense that we are in
    Alice in Wonderland somewhere in these areas.
        Now, I know you are a thoughtful land manager, and you have
    right motives and the right desires here, listen to what I am
    saying and react so that all of us can get a better sense of
    where the Federal direction in this administration wants to go
    to achieve some kind of sensible, scientific, multiple-use on
    all of these lands.
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, we are really talking about the topic of
    balance, I think, as was Senator Burns in his comments, and I
    think there has been a struggle throughout the entire century
    as to what is the best balance that the nation reacted to, the
    condition of the watersheds at the turn of the century, and
    passed the legislation like the Organic Administration Act, the
    Wheats Act, and move it on through. This is the debate that
    will follow us for many, many years.
        As Jack Thomas told me when he talked to me about this job,
    the former chief, as being probably one of the toughest jobs
    with regard to balance with sort of all sides converging, and
    we are essentially many times a wrestling mat, and I struggle
    with questions like why is it that starting about in the 1960's
    and the 1970's that actually the third branch of Government
    began to become more involved in national resource management
    decisions, as we had increases in litigation and things like
    that, and the major decline in the forest timber harvest
    programs, for example, in the Pacific Northwest that occurred
    as a result of the Spotted Owl issue, and the real question
    was, well, how much old-growth do we want to have left in the
    United States, and those kinds of things. So where is it then
    that one goes? I believe in a couple of things. No. 1 is we
    have to apply the best science that we have, and No. 2, that we
    have to keep our eye on the long haul, on the major issues, and
    as we do that we need to be as empathetic and as positive in
    our approach in providing assistance and working with local
    communities through transitions, because transitions have
    always occurred and they will continue to occur, and they are
    never really very much fun for anyone who is involved in those
    kinds of transitions.

                         transitional forest management

        In fact, this agency, as all public land managers are
    involved in this kind of transition today, where we have
    increases in demands for water, and one of the few ways that we
    can enhance water quality, water quantity, is through our good,
    sound watershed management practices, and active management is
    part of that, because when people say to me what are the two or
    three most serious forest management problems that you see in
    the United States today I would give you three.
        No. 1 is the invasion of exotic species, and that problem
    will continue to increase, because we are basically in a
    boundary-less world from the standpoint of ecosystems, with the
    international trade, and products moving every direction every
    day, and that will continue, and it will be a very serious
    problem for us to deal with. The more we can make investments
    in things like Gypsy Moth research that Senator Kohl asked
    about, the better.
        The second issue is the one that I talked about with the
    graphics, largely in the Intermountain West, where they
    overstocked stands, off-site species, the result of 70 years of
    total fire suppression, and then when we do get a very, very
    dry year, we are going to have a catastrophe, and that is going
    to happen, and we have to then apply the best science we can to
    mitigate that, and the graphic, I think, of the Cleveland fire
    depicted that well.

                                   education

        But the third area is one that we do not talk about very
    much, and that is the whole area of education. Bringing a
    broader group of the American public into really understanding
    what is important rather than sort of us being whipsawed
    between the ends of the spectrum to those that think it is a
    sin to cut a tree, between those that perhaps want to cut them
    all, and education I think is, as our population grows, and we
    move into the information age, something that in natural
    resources we are going to have to make more investments in, so
    we can move forward on the land, because people are ultimately
    the delivery system, the local communities, the resource
    managers that are there, the community of interest that--the
    owners of all the public lands. So I guess I would respond
    philosophically in that way.
        Senator Bennett. I have two quick comments, and I apologize
    if they are presumptuous. First, I am interested in your
    description of those who think it is a sin to cut a tree and
    those who want to cut them all. I have never met anybody who
    wants to cut them all. I have met a lot of people who think it
    is a sin to cut a tree.
        I am very distressed, you talk about education, with
    children who come home from grade school in tears because a
    tree was killed for them to have a bed to sleep in. I think we
    do a tremendous disservice when we let that kind of notion go
    forward that somehow it is better for a tree to be left there
    to stand so that it can burn than it is to harvest it so that a
    child can have a bed made out of wood, and a new tree planted,
    this is, in fact, a renewable resource, and there is nothing
    immoral about cutting a tree, but we are having a lot of
    propaganda now that says it is absolutely immoral.
        It is like the folks who talk about first amendment rights
    for animals. I do not want to get off on this. My sister
    teaches in the Montgomery County Schools and she sees essays
    coming through about first amendment rights for animals, and
    she says, freedom of speech for cows, the rights to assemble
    peacefully for badgers, and what she finds out is that the
    school children know nothing about the first amendment, but
    they keep hearing all of this information about animal rights.
    I think that is a very bad balance in the educational system. I
    will get off that.
        You talk about education. As I say, this is presumptuous of
    me, but that is one of the prerogatives of being a Senator. Can
    I give you a homework assignment? There will be a test at the
    end of the hour. Can I ask you to read a book called, ``In a
    Dark Wood,'' by Austen Chase? I know in the environmental
    community Austen Chase's name is absolute anathema, but before
    you decide that everything he says is nonsense will you do him
    the courtesy of reading what he has to say? I think it is the
    best analysis--by the way, he is a philosophy professor. He has
    taught at Harvard.
        Can I ask you to read that book and then maybe we can have
    another conversation about balance, direction, and unintended
    consequences on the national forest?
        Thank you for your good humor and your indulgence. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dombeck. I would be happy to. In fact, this is one of
    the best assignments I have ever received from the Senate.
        Senator Bennett. It is pretty heavy going from time to
    time. It is not easy.
        Mr. Dombeck. In fact, I am traveling to a couple of
    national forests next week so I have some time in the air that
    is about the only time one seems to have these days, so I would
    be happy to read the book.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici, are you ready?
        Senator Domenici. Am I ready?
        Mr. Dombeck. I am ready for the assignment.
        Senator Domenici. You just run out of gas sitting here. I
    came so refreshed, ready to ask so many questions, and then the
    distinguished chairman made me wait 2 hours to have a question,
    and he called on all kind of people before me. It is like I am
    not busy around here, I do not matter.
        Anyhow, I wanted to tell you, Senator, that if this is your
    hearing room, the clocks on the wall are confusing. That one
    says it is seven-minutes-of-eleven, this says ten. Do you think
    you are going to leave them there so that when the time changes
    one will be right again, or what?
        Senator Gorton. That is correct. Daylight Savings Time has
    not gotten that far west.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I want to tell you, I did not set
    my clocks ahead nor my watch on Easter, and I had planned to
    have my family over for an 11 a.m., brunch, and got up at 7:30
    a.m., and put a leg of lamb in the oven and a couple of other
    things and went back to bed, and sleeping away there, knowing I
    had a lot of time, and I heard a doorbell, and I said, ``Oh,
    let's let them ring. Who the hell could that be?'' In about 5
    minutes we heard one of our daughter's beautiful voices,
    ``Mama, Papa, we are here.''
        Well, we were having brunch and we were still in bed, but
    anyway, we ate 1 hour and 15 minutes later than we should have,
    and a good time was had by all, and I am asking questions about
    1 hour and 20 minutes later than I thought, and I am going to
    have a good time.

                            environmental litigation

        Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, in their presence if you
    would listen to me on a couple of things and see if you could,
    as your bill proceeds through, provide some assistance. First,
    I would like to ask this Department of the Federal Government
    to submit to this committee how much has been spent in New
    Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, and break it down, on environmental
    litigation. I would like you to also tell us how much the
    courts awarded to environmental plaintiffs in litigation
    involving your department.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, since you have jurisdiction over the
    other entities that are part of this litigation, like Fish and
    Wildlife, like BLM, I would wonder if you would mind or think
    it relevant to submit a similar question to them in my behalf.
        I would share another question with you, another
    observation, and I think they are aware of this as it affects
    their Department.
        When an environmental group or a conservation group, I do
    not say this with any--I think I am just stating a group of
    people, I am not passing judgment, but when they litigate with
    the Forest Service over such a thing as Spotted Owl habitat, or
    when a group in my State litigates over a silver minnow in a
    river that, while I was growing up, ran dry many, many years, I
    lived 10 or 12 blocks from it, and the purpose of the
    litigation is to make the river run wet all year so we can
    protect a silver minnow, which is an endangered species, or
    could be, and the suits never include those people who are
    adversely affected. You read some of them. It will be such and
    such environmental group versus Fish and Wildlife.
        Now, I believe that is wrong, and I believe we ought to
    think together about how do we make it such that the affected
    parties can get in that lawsuit. Now, I know this is a big
    issue, because the plaintiffs in these causes resist mightily
    the court letting any of them, and they may even have a little
    precedent on their side. I do not know.
        But it seems to me if you are a cattle permittee, we did
    not add to that extreme, there are actually groups who want no
    grazing on the public domain and there are groups who want it
    just like it was 50 years ago, or 30 or 40 years ago, and we
    are required to do some balancing, but the plaintiff does not
    want the permittee in the lawsuit, even though when it is
    finished it adversely affects them, and this kind of lawsuits
    on the silver minnow and its right to use much of our stored
    water for its protection in a desert State in a middle of a
    drought, which is this year, the city of Albuquerque ought to
    be part of that litigation. They are going to take their water.
        The farmer and ranchers in that valley ought to be a part,
    and I would like you to think with me about that and see if we
    might use your appropriation bill to make them at least such
    that they can petition to be in, not indispensable, as you and
    I remember it, but it may be necessary.
        Now, having said that, first, you tried to get a hold of me
    and I missed you and you missed me, and I will make myself a
    available today on the telephone. I do not expect you to talk
    to me about whatever you wanted to speak to me about on the
    telephone.

                               drought assessment

        But I do want to know, do you have an assessment of the
    condition of drought in the State of New Mexico? Have you been
    advised by your experts what it looks like in our State?
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes, we have. In fact, we are part of the
    drought commission that has been meeting at least on a biweekly
    basis, watching very carefully through all of the Ag programs,
    and the Forest Service has been part of that.
        Senator Domenici. We are in serious jeopardy----
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Of having one of the worst
    droughts we have ever had, is that correct----
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Because we do not have much
    snow left up in places which feed our rivers. Are you prepared
    to tell us or could you prepare to tell us from your
    Department's standpoint what you think we might need by way of
    some extraordinary type of assistance so that we might prepare
    ourselves? Is there anything we could be doing in advance?
        We just have to sit by and watch this drought come, but we
    know some things are going to happen. We know water wells are
    going to be in trouble, we know crops are going to have
    problems. Could you share that with us today, or could you
    share it with us personally at another time?

                              fire risk assessment

        Mr. Dombeck. Well, I can make a few comments, but I think
    it would be very beneficial to provide that kind of information
    to people who could be affected; for example, things like with
    fire risks beyond what they normally are, because of the
    drought.
        I sure hope people are taking care of the fuel loads that
    might be close to their buildings, any of their buildings,
    things like that, making sure that we are following the
    groundwater table trends, the aquifer trends, and those that
    perhaps could have problems with water are aware that they are
    near some level of risk. I think there are a wide variety of
    things.
        I think this sort of moves into this area of education that
    Senator Bennett and I were philosophizing about. If you would
    like, Janice McDougle can speak I think in more detail to the
    fire situation that could occur.
        Senator Domenici. If you would, submit for the record the
    fire assessment, and if there is anything that you need by way
    of emergency to get ready in advance I would hope you would
    submit it quickly, because we are going to have one or two
    supplemental bills going through, and just as sure as we are
    sitting here, the State of New Mexico is going to have some
    extraordinary government expenses about 3 or 4 months from now,
    because this drought is going to take place about half-way
    through the summer or less from what we understand already. Can
    you ask your Department----
        Mr. Dombeck. Of course, NRCS, also oversees, is right now
    doing a similar assessment, so why do we not pull together a
    comprehensive assessment for you and----
        Senator Domenici. I would very much appreciate it. If you
    need some other sister departments----
        Mr. Dombeck. We have already talked to James LeWitt, FEMA,
    for example. Why do we not try to organize something and get it
    to you as quickly as possible in terms of the overall----

                                  in-holdings

        Senator Domenici. All right. I would appreciate it. The
    President has a $1 billion program called the Lands Legacy
    Initiative. What percentage of that funding or land
    acquisition, if we do set that in motion, would go towards the
    purchase of existing in-holdings from willing sellers?
        Mr. Lyons. Let me point out Senator Domenici that the
    actual acquisition portion of the funds in this proposal that
    would go to the Forest Service is $118 million. In terms of
    actual in-holding acquisitions, we have a breakdown, and it may
    be better if I gave you that detail later on. We have actually
    prioritized each acquisition that would be covered by the $118
    million.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would
    inquire of the departments like this one that are part of the
    proposed acquisition, expenditure of $1 billion, how much, if
    any, do they intend to use for in-holdings within the lands
    that they have jurisdiction over that should already have been
    purchased, but are sitting there, with people waiting to be
    paid for their in-holdings, if we could get that from each of
    them.
        Senator Gorton. We will be happy to make that request, and
    we will not get a responsive answer. They will say they do not
    know.
        Senator Domenici. I mean look at the $1 billion, you know
    what land they are buying, they are either buying in-holdings
    or they are not buying it, but anyway, I appreciate it.
        I want to say I am not very sanguine about another billion
    dollars being spent on a legacy of lands when we still owe
    hundreds of millions of dollars to property owners in America
    for in-holdings in national parks, national monuments, and
    other things, and we have not paid them for it yet. You did not
    want to comment on this, did you?

                          land acquisition priorities

        Mr. Dombeck. I would like to say to the chairman, I think
    we can provide that information through our prioritization of
    land acquisition projects, which are in-holdings and the
    objectives of each of the acquisitions that are proposed. We
    will be happy to provide that.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, do you consider the billion
    dollar program, maybe you do not want to answer yet, do you
    think it has any chance of proceeding with any large amounts of
    money being put in it?
        Senator Gorton. I believe it needs an authorization, and I
    do not believe that your budget is going to give me the money.
        Senator Domenici. I am thinking that is the case.
    [Laughter.]
        But I am thinking also, you know, that before we set about
    on many of these new initiatives, we ought to look at some
    initiatives that we ought to be doing to help the communities
    that are land-locked by Federal land.
        In northern New Mexico more than anything we need a change
    in the legislation to permit a local community to acquire some
    acreage from the BLM or the Forest Service for a land disposal
    site, for an expansion of community service buildings. I mean
    they are just like this, with public land around them, and we
    have minimal opportunity for them to acquire Federal land, and
    it is very difficult. In fact, I have been passing legislation
    to get them that.
        There are three of them we have already passed this year.
    That should be ministerial. It should be they applied, there is
    a need, it does not harm the forest, and it is diminimus in
    size.
        So if you could look into that, I would like to expand the
    current definitions by statute so that we could help the
    communities instead of doing some new things, when they are
    sitting there wondering what is wrong with us. Do you
    understand the problem we have, Mr. Lyons?
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, I do, Senator Domenici. As you know, we
    have some limited authorities, but we would be glad to sit down
    with you and look at specific cases and see how we might make
    adjustments.
        Senator Domenici. I appreciate it. I have about five
    parochial questions and I do not believe there is anyone from
    the press of New Mexico covering this hearing. Some of you-all
    may have thought your press was covering it a while ago, but I
    am just going to submit mine. Thank you. I appreciate your
    hospitality.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Craig.

                    Opening statement of Senator Larry Craig

        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of
    being an observer here this morning for quite some time, like
    my colleague from New Mexico, and I say that with a certain
    amount of reaction to the Chief and to the Secretary, because
    while I have not heard any detailed questions this morning, I
    have heard a huge outpouring of frustration, and in some
    instances, anger.
        I would have to think that ought to be recorded amongst you
    as being relatively significant, because you are dealing with
    Senators from large public land States, in which there are
    large forest land holdings, Federal land holdings.
        In my lifetime of living in and around the forests, and
    with Forest Service green suits sitting at our dinner tables,
    at our ranches, working with us cooperatively, and this has
    been going on since my grandfather homesteaded there and was
    anxious to establish a Federal forest reserve along with BLM to
    protect the public lands, I have never known such frustration
    or anger.
        We sit back here, and you sit back here, and some sit back
    here and pull strings and design a grand new national scheme
    based on some people's image, and in most instances it denies
    the relationships that other chiefs have understood and known
    as a result of the Organic Act between the public land and the
    immediate communities of interest in a broad national spectrum
    and in a broad national understanding. Whether it is the
    Senator from Utah, or New Mexico, or Alaska, or Washington, or
    this Senator from Idaho, what you hear today is frustration,
    and in some instances, absolute anger, and we are simply
    projecting from our population bases what we hear, communities
    dying, families without jobs, schools without money, all based
    on former or existing policy that does not appear to be working
    under the current constraints.
        Now, I understand what you are doing, and some of it I
    disagree with, and we have dealt with that already head on. We
    have had two hearings on your budget before the Energy
    Committee and before my subcommittee, and I will deal with a
    few more details today, but first of all, out of that
    frustration let me state a positive note.

                               douglas fir beetle

        First of all, let me thank you for your decision as it
    relates to the Douglas Fir Beetle in the Panhandle and in the
    Colville Forests. While you may be trying to reflect a broader
    perspective of the population's interest in our public lands,
    we should never deny the obvious of disease and the ability to
    react to that in good management, because while it may be
    politically popular to react in some of the ways you are
    reacting, if it does not prescribe good management in a
    reasonable sense or in a scientific or knowledge-based sense,
    we somehow have to balance that out, and I think you are doing
    that with the Douglas Fir Beetle.
        We have an epidemic on our hands, so we could see 300,000
    or 400,000 acres infested, and broad landscapes turning red out
    there in the near future. You have given us a chance to deal
    with 4,000 acres immediately in an emergency sense. We are
    looking at I think an additional 21,000 and we are working it
    through the NEPA process, and we hope that that is done in an
    expeditious way. It is critical.
        Can I go ahead with questions now?
        Senator Gorton. Yes. It is your turn.
        Senator Craig. All right. Let me walk you-all through a
    couple of questions that have dealt with the past budgets and
    current budgets.

               interior columbia basin ecosystem management plan

        As you know there was a lot of debate over the
    implementation of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
    Management Plan, and I think part of the criticism circles
    around the lack of inclusion of the local governments in that
    planning process, or an inclusion that would appear to be an
    exclusion or a jettison of some of their concerns and some of
    their input.
        Consequently, language was included in the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations bill, directing you to include affected States
    and local governments in the process by developing a new
    approach to the plan. What is the Forest Service doing to
    ensure that the affected States and local governments are
    included in that process? Chief? Jim? Either one.

                               public involvement

        Mr. Lyons. Senator, let me point out that both as a result
    of conversations that Mike and I had with you and Subcommittee
    Chairman Gorton, as well as the commitments we made in writing,
    we have followed through and are in the process of reissuing an
    EIS supplemental so that we can engage in further dialogue
    about options for management of the lands in the Interior
    Columbia Basin. As a part of that, outreach to the affected
    counties and communities is continuing.
        As you know, there continues to be a great deal of debate
    about that. I know we have taken to heart the notion that
    sufficient flexibility has to be built into any management
    decision so that local conditions can be reflected in those
    decisions.
        That is what we are seeking to accomplish in this new EIS
    and the alternative that will be chosen, while at the same time
    recognizing that we are dealing with a regional challenge in
    listings of some stocks, trout, steelhead, salmon, and dealing
    with other landscape-level issues, such as the forest health
    concern that you just identified.
        It is a difficult challenge. It provides sufficient
    guidance to deal with those regional issues, while at the same
    time the flexibility to make sure that local managers can make
    decisions that are responsive to local conditions. But we have
    taken that to heart. We will be issuing an EIS and moving
    forward with another comment period to address these concerns.
        Senator Craig. Well, I hope you are sensitive to it,
    because while some of our stakeholders have used existing law
    as trip wires, I have a feeling that there is a growing concern
    out there because the Forest Service has really kind of ground
    to a halt in any kind of activity decision making, that if this
    one does not work, a whole new set of stakeholders are going to
    use it as a trip wire, and we will see another decade of
    gridlock on our public lands and the concern of the Chief that
    the third branch of Government will be the decision maker who
    is going to be out there, unless we can gain a majority here in
    the Congress that will work with us and then we will simply
    start mandating again in public policy and clarifying that.
        I know what you are trying to do, but your credibility with
    the collaborative process or inclusion process is at stake on
    this one.
        Mr. Lyons. We recognize that, Senator.

                                 noxious weeds

        Senator Craig. Chief Dombeck, as you know, noxious weeds
    are a serious problem on both public lands and private lands.
    You talked about those invaders a moment ago. I am in the
    process of taking, I have the permission of all 50 States'
    Departments of Agricultures now, we are introducing a noxious
    weed bill, and we are using some of the President's Executive
    order in it.
        I do not think 18 months of talk is anything necessary
    anymore. We all know what is needed, and we need to come to
    people like the chairman and others and put some money behind
    it and maybe some new policy, and my bill will do that.
        It is a serious problem, and some of your lands are
    habitat, if you will, or they are harboring. The Plant
    Protection Act of 1999 that I have introduced will focus on
    efforts in the Federal land a better fight on this concern, and
    APHIS will be given expansion of its authorities to move, and
    it will be the lead Government agency.
        I have declared an all-out war on weeds in the West, and I
    was absolutely amazed at the army that appeared out of the
    weeds to fight, because we recognized what is going on out
    there finally, and I did it, because of the interest of the
    State, only to find out that 50 States immediately stood up and
    said, oh, thank you very much, somebody is finally speaking out
    on a problem that most have been silent on or at least limited
    on.
        I guess my question to you will be: Are you willing to join
    in that fight?

                                invasive species

        Mr. Dombeck. Yes, we will. In fact, as I said, one of the
    major problems with resource management across the country is
    the invasive species, and it is true all over the country. It
    is not only the Starthistle, or the Nap Weed, or the Leafy
    Spurs in the West, you have Mellowluke in the Everglades, and
    Kudzu in the Southeast, and it is Gypsy Moth, Asian Long Horn
    Beetle.
        We could go on and on and list problem species, and I would
    also hope that as you move that forward that you would take a
    look at the research needs, because one of our best defenses
    against this, of course, is to avoid the problem of coming to
    our shores to begin with, but then once it is here, the more it
    can be isolated the better, and we are making increased
    investments in research with regard to these, but the need is
    much greater.
        Senator Craig. Well, if we can bring State, Federal, and
    local universities, private resources together, and there are
    some of the new biological efforts that are underway, makes
    some sense, this is something that we just need to spend more
    time at working, I suspect, harder.
        Mr. Dombeck. Our technology transfer capabilities in our
    work, with strong support from the State foresters, I know the
    land commissioners are all going to be in town next week, the
    State land commissioners, and----
        Senator Craig. Well, I have been working with them, and
    they are very excited about a greater coordinated effort. I
    hope we can get there.

                                prescribed burns

        It is my understanding that some prescribed burns are
    planned for the Boise National Forest. I will only say as an
    added commentary, I find it fascinating that the Secretary of
    the Interior is out flying over the Boise Forest prescribing
    burns instead of the Chief of the Forest Service.
        I said to the press in Idaho, ``Do not listen to Bruce
    Babbitt, he does not manage the Forest Service, he just thinks
    he does.'' I trust you two will continue to do that. Anyway, he
    was out there getting great press over burning down the Boise.
        I do not think that is going to happen, but anyway, last
    year we put language in your appropriation bill, directed line
    officers to see to it that commercially viable and harvestable
    timber is not burned, recognizing that fire is necessary and we
    ought to be doing some burning out there to create our uneven-
    ages, and our mosaics, and the health of our forests.
        Be that as it may, that was to be done and the public was
    to be consulted in that. What is being done on the Boise
    National Forest to ensure that you are complying with that
    language?
        Mr. Dombeck. What I can do is give you--I cannot give you
    the specifics of what is being done on the Boise, but we would
    be happy to check with Dave Rittenhaus and get back with you.
        Senator Craig. I wish you would, and we will chat with
    Dave, too. All of a sudden, when I saw the Secretary out
    talking about burning the Boise, I thought maybe he has not
    read the law, but then again, not too surprising on that issue.

                                prescribed fire

        Mr. Dombeck. I try and reinforce that fire is a natural
    part of the system----
        Senator Craig. Absolutely.
        Mr. Dombeck [continuing]. And we need to understand that,
    but our assessment is that about 10 percent of our at-risk
    acres can be burned without some other kind of treatment,
    whether it is mechanical thinning, salvage, harvest, some type
    of other fuel reduction mechanisms. So we need the whole regime
    to be applied. Not one of those single methods is the answer in
    itself.
        Senator Craig. Well, we agree on that. We absolutely agree
    on that, but there is a frustration. If there is commercial
    timber out there, and our mills are setting idle, and our
    people are without work, and our mill operators or loggers are
    without work, and we are burning commercially valuable timber
    for the sake of forest health, when we could be thinning and
    cleaning, we have a problem, and we have a little more pouring
    out of anger, and then you are going to hear a little more
    anger coming over this dais at you, so that is why that
    language is in the bill, now law, and we hope you look at that
    to make sure that we are working in that direction.
        Chief, an issue that has come to my attention, which I
    think disturbs me, is the discrepancy between the Forest
    Service's funding for the timber sale program and the funding
    for timber roads.

                             roads and timber sales

        Numbers from your agency show that you provide one level of
    funding for timber sales and another level for timber roads,
    which is I think inconsistent. Based on numbers we received
    from you, on a national level, the various regions requested
    $48 million in road money to support a timber offer level of
    about 2.5 billion board feet. The agency is providing about $35
    million to accomplish that level. Why is there such a large
    discrepancy?
        Mr. Dombeck. I can get you the numbers in detail, but here
    is my view of that. First, in all areas I do not think we have
    a program area where our region is getting all that it has
    requested. We have heard requests for increased funding in
    programs here this morning, and other places----
        Senator Craig. Sure.
        Mr. Dombeck [continuing]. So that is a given, but also I
    believe some of the requests likely involve a request for road
    support, for overhead, for other things that may not directly
    be road construction. The second thing I believe occurred was
    that through the conference report last year that harvest was
    increased by about 200 million board feet, and dollars were
    added, I believe, to the forest management program, but to my
    knowledge I do not think those dollars, commensurate dollars'
    were added to the roads program. I believe that is correct,
    right, Ron?
        Mr. Stewart. That is correct.
        Mr. Dombeck. But we will give you a breakdown of that.
        Senator Craig. Well, we need that, because if these are
    accurate, you cannot make those timber targets, and I say this,
    I have been told that there has been a particular problem in
    region ten.
        According to reports from the region, roughly one-third of
    their fiscal year 1999 timber program may be in jeopardy,
    because it was not given enough money for roads. Are you aware
    of that problem?
        Mr. Dombeck. I am not aware of that one, no.
        Senator Craig. That is pretty significant. I mean I
    understand the dislocations of numbers, but when you set
    targets, then you ought to be able to back them up with the
    necessary tools to at least under normal, reasonable
    circumstances meet those targets.

                          tongass land management plan

        Jim, let me pursue with you only briefly the issue of the
    Tongass. I am not going to be as impassioned as my colleague
    from Alaska, because I guess for the simple reason that the
    Tongass is not in Idaho, but at the same time I have followed
    that episode in that process before the committee of
    jurisdiction that I chair and working with Senator Murkowski
    for a good number of years.
        I must tell you that yesterday I think my reaction would be
    that we found the Tongass Land Management Plan is so
    significant as a final decision that it warrants the signature
    not from the regional forester, not from the Chief of the
    Forest Service, but yourself as the Under Secretary of
    Agriculture.
        What I am trying to understand about this process is
    process, because your credibility rests on process on both
    sides, all stakeholders, and how we get it defined, and how we
    understand appeals, and the credibility of those appeals, and
    working our way up and down the ladders from the region to the
    chief's office, and back down.
        I got a strange feeling that all of a sudden somebody
    walked in and just went, chunk, and whatever happened below
    does not count any more, I am going to make a decision from the
    top, that is it, take it, or sue me.
        If that is the case, I can understand why the senior
    Senator from Alaska was so exorcized, because our credibility
    around here is one of being believable, and trusting, and that
    processes that are prescribed as law work. So let me walk you
    through some questions that I am concerned about, because,
    first, I can assume that your decision involved no
    participation from the Council of Environmental Quality or
    other White House offices, as George Frampton testified before
    the House the day-before-yesterday.
        Mr. Lyons. That is correct.

                             administrative appeals

        Senator Craig. Were the administrative appeals you decided
    yesterday first filed on September 24, 1997?
        Mr. Lyons. I believe--I could not tell you the specific
    date, but those are the appeals that were filed on the 1997
    plan, that is correct.
        Senator Craig. Do not the Forest Service regulations
    indicate that the agency will try to decide these appeals
    within 160 days?
        Mr. Lyons. That is correct, and as you know, we were
    delinquent in doing so on litigation related to that issue.
        Senator Craig. In light of the extraordinary delay for a
    response, have not some of the appellants maintained that you
    have constructively denied their appeals and sought redress in
    the Federal district court?
        Mr. Lyons. I think that is the litigation I was
    referencing, Senator.
        Senator Craig. What will you tell the court about their
    claims, and how will the Government advise the court to deal
    with those claims that have been resolved by yesterday's
    decision?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, we had told the court previously that we
    intended to resolve the appeals issue as expeditiously as
    possible, and, in fact, that was one of the reasons that I
    elected to take the appeals. As Senator Stevens pointed out, it
    has been over a decade that this issue has been debated, and,
    therefore, I was attempting to expedite resolution by simply
    moving past the chief's appeal level to bring this to closure,
    and then if the----
        Senator Craig. Then how about the claims that were not
    resolved by your decision yesterday?
        Mr. Lyons. I think we addressed all the appeals that were
    raised yesterday, either individually or as they were
    consolidated, as I think the appellants were aware of.
        Senator Craig. So you tried to persuade the court to
    dismiss all claims, even though some may still be substantively
    relevant, and force these appellants to refile.
        Mr. Lyons. Well, there is no right of further appeal, as
    you know. When I elect to take----
        Senator Craig. I guess that is right. It is just sue now.
        Mr. Lyons. Well, one of the reasons to resolve this issue,
    and this is a unique decision, but not unprecedented, is to try
    and bring these issues to closure as quickly as possible.
        Senator Craig. Will you try to get the courts to dismiss a
    suit if one comes?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, I think we----
        Senator Craig. One is pending. You have one pending now.

                          tongass land management plan

        Mr. Lyons. Yes, and I think our argument would be, though I
    am not the Department of Justice, that the final decision
    rendered yesterday should resolve that pending suit.
        If I could make one point, Senator, and that is, I think we
    all agree that this issue has gone on long enough, and that
    there was need to seek resolution. We had, in fact, received a
    request from some staff that this issue be remanded.
        We felt we could work within the issues that were raised in
    the original EIS, that the public had an opportunity to comment
    on within the alternatives that were presented in the EIS to
    address the relevant and I think significant issues raised by
    some of the appellants to render----
        Senator Craig. I think all of us are frustrated by time,
    Jim, but why would it not be appropriate under the current
    process to allow the pending litigation to proceed to a
    conclusion on any issues unresolved or any new matters that
    might be raised as a result of your decision yesterday?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, Senator, I think my view was that we can
    go on and discuss this issue forever. It was about time for
    someone to make a decision and move on with the debate, which
    will now be addressed in the form of the district court.
        As far as the claim that the public had not had adequate
    opportunity for input, I point out that there was extensive
    comment on the 1997 EIS, there has been comment throughout this
    whole process, and so we dealt with issues which were in the
    context of the----
        Senator Craig. Will you allow the court to continue? I mean
    you----
        Mr. Lyons. Well, the court will make that decision.
        Senator Craig. Pardon?
        Mr. Lyons. I said I guess the court will make that
    judgment.
        Senator Craig. What will the Government recommend? I mean
    obviously you are going to recommend something.
        Mr. Lyons. I assume we will recommend that we want to be
    able to proceed, and to implement the 1999 decision, which was
    a modification of the 1997 ROD issued by Phil Janek.
        Senator Craig. OK. Let me see if I can summarize your
    rationale for proceeding the way you have, that is, issuing the
    Final Record of Decision rather than deciding the appeals and
    remanding the plan to the chief or to the regional forester. As
    I understand, and Jim, you probably ought to listen to this----
        Mr. Lyons. I am sorry.
        Senator Craig. As I understand it, you are justifying this
    course of action by asserting that your decision is a revision
    of the 1979 plan, and there is, therefore, no need for further
    public review or comment or NEPA analysis, because your
    decision yesterday replaces the regional forester's 1997
    decision in its entirety, thus the regional forester's 1997
    decision is nullified as if it never existed. Is this a fair
    summation of how you would justify your course of action?
        Mr. Lyons. No. As I mentioned, Senator Stevens, I do not
    think that is a correct characterization of what was done.
        Senator Craig. OK.
        Mr. Lyons. What we did was, we decided the appeals that
    were pending, I decided the appeals that were pending, with
    regard to the 1997 Record of Decision, and modified--both
    affirmed the 1997 decision and modified it in response to the
    issues raised by the appellants, and a ROD was issued simply to
    provide for those issues to be described in context.
        So it was a matter of simply trying to, if you will,
    present the entire story, as opposed to simply presenting a
    response to each individual appeal, which is another way in
    which we could have presented it.

                        forest plan development process

        Senator Craig. Has not your course of action blurred the
    process normally followed to first develop a forest plan under
    the National Forest Management Act, second, conduct
    environmental analysis under NEPA, and third, later hear
    appeals of final decisions in such a way that it is hard to
    follow the logic behind just exactly what you did yesterday, or
    put differently, is yesterday's decision a final National
    Forest Management Act plan, or is it a response to appeals on
    what was a final National Forest Management Act plan? I do not
    think it can be both at the same time, so what is it?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, as I said, Senator, I think what we did
    was, we resolved the issues that were raised by appellants with
    regard to the 1997 plan, and modified that plan in rendering a
    Final Decision yesterday. That is, I believe, fully consistent
    with the forest planning process.
        We went through public review, a NEPA process, there was
    public comment on that, a Record of Decision was issued in
    1997, it was subject to appeal, and I simply resolved the
    appeals yesterday.
        Senator Craig. It is arguable to say that you just rewrote
    a new plan, or you just wrote a new plan.
        Mr. Lyons. I do not think we should confuse the mechanism
    we used to issue a Final Decision with whether or not it was
    simply a resolution of the appeals issues.
        Senator Craig. OK.
        Mr. Lyons. It is not a wholly new plan, it is an
    affirmation of the 1997 plan, with modifications.
        Senator Craig. Well, let us assume for a moment that we
    accept your rationale, that you were really making a final plan
    decision, describe for me how, without engaging expert
    communications, you had sufficient information for a decision,
    even though you could not even talk to the people in the
    regional office who wrote the plan, that does not now exist.
        Mr. Lyons. We had a sizeable record, as you might imagine,
    having been accumulated over a decade, from which to work. We
    assembled a team of individuals with expertise relevant to the
    issues raised by appellants and with some knowledge and
    experience of Alaska issues, that team then worked with the
    existing record to address the issues raised by appellants, and
    to help guide me in making this Final Decision.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Craig, I am pretty quick going to
    have to intervene.
        Senator Craig. OK. I have a couple more, and I will quit.
        Senator Gorton. OK.
        Senator Craig. Thank you. I think it is important that we
    get this for the record, because, Mr. Chairman, I am very
    concerned that the Under Secretary's decision yesterday is
    precedent-setting in very significant legal ways, and because I
    think that we as policymakers and the prescription of process
    was sought and denied in a significant way yesterday. So let me
    ask this question.

                          record of decision authority

        Do you as the Under Secretary even have the authority to
    approve a Record of Decision under 36 CFR 21910C-1,
    specifically calls for the regional forester to prepare a
    record of decision for a plan?
        Mr. Lyons. I do not know that I can answer that question,
    Senator. I frankly do not understand it. I know the Secretary
    has final authority to render a Decision on the appeals that
    were filed on the 1997 decision, and that is what we exercised
    yesterday under our appeals rule.
        Senator Craig. OK. Well, let me ask one last question, and
    then I am going to bring it back to the chairman, because I
    want the chairman to understand what I am trying to do here.
        Mr. Lyons. And I am trying to understand.
        Senator Craig. Maybe it will justify his patience. In every
    appeal decision that I have reviewed, the decision resulted in
    either affirming the plan or remanding it to the deciding
    officers for changes. In every instance with which I am
    familiar where these changes were major, they were construed to
    require a significant plan amendment.
        This is triggered both by NFMA public participation and
    NEPA environmental analysis requirements. Are you trying to
    tell me that the changes that you made in the 1997 Record of
    Decision or in the 1979 Record of Decision, whichever you claim
    to be changing, were insufficiently major that they did not
    involve a revision or a significant plan amendment?
        Mr. Lyons. What I am telling you Senator is that we worked
    within the scope of the record that already existed and
    evaluated it in making the decision to affirm the 1997 plan,
    with modifications, and that is what we did yesterday.

               interior columbia basin ecosystem management plan

        Senator Craig. Well, my concluding thought, Mr. Chairman,
    as it relates to ICBEMP, or our regional ecosystem analysis, I
    believe dangerous precedent was set yesterday, in that while we
    have created, or the Forest Service has caused to be created by
    NEPA and NFMA, a rather complicated process, with tiers of
    decision making that are relatively clear cut now, but when
    these kinds of actions occur, what happens to all of the kinds
    of energies that we in our communities put into efforts like
    ICBEMP, and if some group decidedly disagrees, whether they are
    in the majority or the minority, but they happen to be
    consistent with the politics of the office, and I am talking
    about your office or the Chief's office, you make these kinds
    of decisions, and it appears to me that you have denied the
    process.
        Now, I am no lawyer, and my guess is we will find that out
    over due time, but it is kind of like I cannot get my way, so I
    am going to do it anyway. Now, that is how I have to read these
    kinds of decisions. Now, you know the credibility gap we, you
    and I, are into right now on efforts like ICBEMP.
        I think your action yesterday had a real chilling impact
    well down into the lower 48 when it comes to these decision
    making processes. That is why I was very curious as to your
    thinking and how it aligns.
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, I would simply respond by saying that
    the issues related to the appeals on the Tongass were decided
    in a manner that I think is fully consistent with regulations,
    in order to allow us to move on to implementation of what we
    think is a solid plan.
        I do not view those in the context of ICBEMP, and I think
    further discussions we have had both with you and Senator
    Gorton, we are going to continue to work through that process
    to try and, of course, be true to NEPA and NMFA, and the other
    processes in which we are bound to operate, and also to seek
    opportunities for public input involvement to hopefully come up
    with a sound plan that has broad regional and community
    support.
        Senator Craig. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience.

                          puget sound map photographs

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Dombeck, would you get your assistant
    to put out those three Puget Sound map photographs? Maybe right
    in a row, at the base of the dais here. Oh, they are all in
    one. You can just put them back the way they were before.
        I think you all know that I try to be understanding and
    relatively calm, perhaps more so than some of my colleagues
    over some of our policy differences, but I have to tell you,
    Mr. Dombeck, I regard those photographs as fraudulent.
        The color scheme seems to be designed to show that green is
    good and black is bad, and that basically what has happened
    there has been such a huge urbanization as to destroy the
    environment, but the selection of colors is rather peculiar. On
    the map on the left, one of the large black areas, of course,
    is the metropolitan part of the city of Seattle itself, but the
    largest black area is Mount Rainier National Park.
        Now, no map or photograph that is designed to educate is
    going to have the ice and snow on the top of Mount Rainier in
    the same color as the metropolitan downtown area of the city of
    Seattle.
        Now, I have lived in that area for more than 40 years, and
    it certainly is growing rapidly, and between the first
    photograph and the last there has probably been a doubling of
    the population, but you are trying to illustrate to us, it
    seems to me, that the environment of the area has been
    irrevocably destroyed.
        Again, the very use of black is, of course, negative. It
    sort of looks like, coming from the Forest Service, that we had
    a wonderful set of forests and they have all burned down at the
    same time.
        In fact, when I look at the detailed copies of the map I
    have here, I will give you two illustrations. In the city of
    Seattle itself, within the city limits of Seattle itself, the
    clear implication of the difference between the first
    photograph and the last photograph is that three of the four
    largest parks in the city of Seattle have been destroyed. They
    are green on the left map, they are black on the right map.
        Now, I know that those three parks have not been destroyed.
    In fact, if anything, they have more tree cover now in 1999
    than they did 24 years earlier.
        My family's vacation home is on one of those two islands in
    the upper left-hand corner in all three of the maps. In the map
    on the left, 1977, that area is mostly green. In the one on the
    right, both of those islands look more thickly settled and more
    totally destroyed than does the central district of the city of
    Seattle. They are for all practical purposes entirely black.
    Now, that is not true on Canano Island and on the south side of
    Whidbey Island.
        So you have presented to me a set of photographs that I can
    only say very bluntly are fraudulent. They do not show land
    use, they do not show the state of vegetation, and I will be
    damned if I know what they do show. We try to work together on
    things like this, and I am given this kind of stuff, it is
    supposed to mean something.
        It does not mean anything, and I sure hope that you are not
    showing these around to prove some cause or another. That is
    just flat out wrong, and if you want to use photographs like
    that, let us have them shown meaningfully, and colored areas
    that are totally different from one another, in a different
    fashion.
        I do not know where that green, yellow, black color scheme
    came from, but it does nothing but obstruct an understanding of
    what has taken place in a rapidly growing, mostly, but not
    entirely major metropolitan area in the United States.
        You can take it down, if your assistant will, but I hope
    when you go back to your office you will destroy it, or come up
    with something that is more meaningful than what you have shown
    us here today.

                                crown jewel mine

        Now, I have a wide range of questions. I may ask a couple
    of them. I do not have time for all of them, but I do want to
    cover another action in your case, Mr. Lyons, that has taken
    place in just the last couple of days, for which I suppose you
    are prepared, and it has to do with Crown Jewel, specifically,
    and mining regulations, generally,
        Two years after this administration, in January 1997,
    approved a Record of Decision, after that Record has been
    successfully defended by the Forest Service in a Federal
    district court, after the company concerned has spent $80
    million on the project, after more than 50 permits have been
    obtained, after the direction of the Washington Department of
    Ecology stated, and I quote: ``No other proposal has received
    this level of environmental scrutiny,'' a letter that you
    signed together with three others, presumably by the Interior
    Department's solicitor, John Leshy, pulled the rug out from
    under the entire project, rendered an opinion directly contrary
    to the U.S. Forest Service manual, and has not only destroyed
    that project, and perhaps the company that did so, but
    apparently has had the impact in national markets of causing
    almost every mining company in the United States that operates
    largely now on public lands to have a tremendous loss in the
    value of their securities and grave warnings about their
    future.
        I guess I have to ask you, Mr. Lyons, no private person
    could ever act in this fashion. Does not the Government of the
    United States owe at least a minimal degree of fairness to
    people who operate in good faith pursuant to the laws, and for
    that matter, the regulations that the Forest Service has
    kindled?
        How possibly can the Government justify, simply justify on
    the basis of the most minimal standards of justice, a decision
    of this nature?
        Mr. Lyons. I agree with the concern about fairness, Mr.
    Chairman. I would simply explain that the letter that was
    signed by myself, our general counsel, Charlie Walls, as well
    as the Solicitor of Interior, John Leshy, and Assistant
    Secretary Bacca, was the result of a legal interpretation of
    the 1872 Mining Act by the Department of Interior, and as you
    know, Interior has jurisdiction over subsurface rights related
    to the National Forests, so based on their guidance and their
    interpretation of the amount of surface occupancy that is
    provided for under the 1872 Mining Act, we were sending that
    letter to the company in question.
        Senator Gorton. Then it does not represent your own or your
    own Department's independent analysis of the law.
        Mr. Lyons. Well, it represents the guidance we have
    received, based on Mr. Leshy's legal decision----
        Senator Gorton. Please answer the question. Does it
    represent your view and your Department's view of the law?
        Mr. Lyons. It represents what I have been told is an
    appropriate interpretation of the law.
        Senator Gorton. Does it mean that you will now change your
    regulations in the Forest Service manual to the extent that
    that manual is diametrically, takes a diametrically contrary
    point of view?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, I think it raises a number of policy
    questions, Mr. Chairman, that we are currently assessing. This
    is obviously a new interpretation rendered by Mr. Leshy that
    serves as the basis for this decision.
        Senator Gorton. Are you going to engage immediately in a
    new rule making on that subject?
        Mr. Lyons. I have asked for an analysis of the
    implications.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I want to go back and ask the first
    question again. Do you believe that there is the remotest
    degree of justice or fairness in the Government of the United
    States acting in this way with respect to an individual
    applicant or for that matter with respect to the wide range of
    companies that now apparently are operating in a way
    inconsistent with this interpretation?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, I would agree, Mr. Chairman, it would have
    been preferable to have some sense of this interpretation
    sooner in the process.
        Senator Gorton. That really is not a very good answer. Does
    not the Government of the United States owe organizations like
    that some minimal degree of fairness?

                         interpretation of mining laws

        Mr. Lyons. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I also have to
    acknowledge that we are responsible for implementing the law,
    and if this is what the appropriate legal interpretation of the
    law is, not being a lawyer, then I have to follow it.
        Senator Gorton. Then are you recommending to us that we
    reverse this interpretation as a part of our bill this year?
        Mr. Lyons. No, sir, I am not doing that.
        Senator Gorton. So you think that this interpretation is
    not only required by law, but it is fair and to be continued.
        Mr. Lyons. I believe it is consistent with the law. I am
    not going to make a judgment about the fairness.
        Senator Gorton. You do not think fairness falls within your
    assignment or job.
        Mr. Lyons. I think it does, Senator, and I think it would
    have been fairer to give the company some forewarning that this
    was likely to be the interpretation of the 1872 Mining Act as
    it affected their proposal. Nevertheless, this is the
    interpretation that has been rendered, and that is what we have
    communicated to the----
        Senator Gorton. It is an interpretation that has been
    rendered and one that you do not want changed by statute.

                            mining act implications

        Mr. Lyons. You asked if I was recommending that in the
    context of the fiscal year 2000 budget. I am not, and I am
    asking now for an interpretation of the implications of this,
    both for existing operations and future operations.
        I think there has been tremendous debate about the 1872
    Mining Act in this Congress. There are a lot of issues I think
    we would like to revisit in the 1872 mining law. If in that
    context we were addressing issues, this is one we might
    address.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I can only give the editorial comment
    that I hope Mr. Lyons that I would have had the courage to
    resign rather than to sign such a letter that does such an
    injustice.

                             high-risk agency list

        Mr. Dombeck, you did try to cover your various
    accountability problems in your opening statement, but I want
    you more specifically to respond to the General Accounting
    Office's statement earlier this year adding the Forest Service
    to its list of agencies of high risk of waste, fraud, abuse,
    and mismanagement. Do you agree or disagree with the
    assessment?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, based upon their criteria I will agree
    with GAO's assessment. Let me ask my chief financial officer if
    she would like to provide an interpretation or additional
    information.
        Ms. Goerl. The listing of the financial management concerns
    that the Forest Service is a high risk, when you view the basis
    for which they make those determinations, would seem fair, in
    view of the past actions that GAO has listed in terms of their
    criteria for that. So it was actually not that surprising for
    me to learn that we were put on the high-risk list, in view of
    my past experience.
        Senator Gorton. When you come back here next year will you
    be off that list?
        Ms. Goerl. I think that the GAO likes to reserve that you
    have to get a clean opinion for a couple of years before they
    would determine that the long-term health of the financial
    management program is enough that they would remove you from
    the list, and that has also been their past history.

                             general administration

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Dombeck, last year's conference report
    directed you to eliminate the general administration line for
    this budget, but you have one. When are you going to comply
    with that direction?
        Mr. Dombeck. Also let me ask Vincette to address that.
        Ms. Goerl. I think that improvement in the budget structure
    is essential to improving our accountability, and I believe we
    did forward one change this particular year in public asset
    protection and management.
        I think what we have to do before we do significant budget
    reform is to ensure that we have a sound financial basis and a
    financial system in place, which we do expect to have by
    October 1, 2000. However, we did forward for discussion and
    dialogue a proposed budget structure that we would like to have
    discussions with you and the Congress over the next couple of
    months, so that we can come back in 2001 with a renewed budget
    structure that would consider the general administration as
    well.

                            budget structure reform

        What we did in that particular proposal that we forwarded
    with the budget justification is link it back to what I think
    is very important, the strategic plan is long-term outcome
    measures, with current performance plan, products, and services
    we expect to do in the current year with the new budget
    structure.
        I think that that is essential, along with a strong
    financial infrastructure to ensure that we can report against
    that. We would be very pleased to work with you on that
    structure together.
        Senator Gorton. Given the length of this hearing and given
    the fact that I have 30 or 40 more questions by staff, I think
    we will submit the balance of them to you.
        Senator Bennett. Mr. Chairman, I came back to hear you.
        Senator Gorton. You missed the good part. [Laughter.]
        It went first.
        Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, if I could just have one second.
        Senator Gorton. Yes.

                          puget sound map photographs

        Mr. Lyons. Since I was the one who raised the issues
    related to the photographs of the Puget Sound area I would like
    to have an opportunity perhaps to address your concerns at a
    later time and maybe come up and visit with you, but I want to
    assure you there is no intent, and I do not concur that those
    photos are fraudulent, but rather I think the black areas you
    identified simply reflect areas where there are no trees,
    which, of course, is why Mount Rainier shows up black.
        I would like to have an opportunity to explain to you how
    those photos were developed and in their utility at least in
    guiding us in terms of some of the work we are doing in the
    area, and I certainly did not mean to offend you in presenting
    that information.
        Senator Gorton. You will have that opportunity, Mr. Lyons.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman----
        Senator Gorton. Yes.

                                  mining laws

        Senator Craig [continuing]. It is not that I want the last
    word, but I agree with you and I am glad you pursued the issue
    of the letter that both Secretary Lyons and Solicitor Lechey
    signed. I worked on mining law for a long while, I have read
    the letter, I have read the context and understand it
    generally, and my reaction is simply this, I guess I am a
    little sorry that Jim got caught up in it. Mr. Leshy has had an
    agenda for the mining industry for a long time, it is well
    known. He has gone around the country giving political speeches
    about it for a long while.
        I kind of view this as a way of dragging the industry
    kicking and screaming to this administration's vision of reform
    of the 1872 mining law. The great tragedy is, of course, that
    it may well destroy companies and all of that, but then again,
    I guess that is relatively insignificant when one pursues one's
    politics.
        Thank you.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gorton. Thank you very much. There will be some
    additional questions which will be submitted for your response
    in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
                                      fire
        The Subcommittee is very concerned about the fire risk on Forest
    Service lands, particularly in the interior West. GAO Associate
    Director for Energy, Resources and Science Issues Barry Hill testified
    recently that as many as 39 million acres of the interior West's
    national forests are a ``tinderbox.'' However, the budget request for
    fire preparedness, is the same as last year. This represents only 67
    percent of the optimal level of MEL (Most Efficient Level). This is
    down from 74 percent last year. Your own budget states:
        At the lower protection levels associated with a smaller percentage
    of MEL, there is increased risk of injury and loss of life to both the
    public and to firefighters, due to reduced staffing levels and
    decreased availability of firefighting resources.
        Question. How can the agency justify lowering the preparedness
    level in light of these facts?
        Answer. The president's fiscal year 2000 budget will allow the
    Forest Service to field an effective initial attack suppression force.
    There may be fewer initial attack resources available, but they will
    not be delayed in their action. Having fewer initial attack resources
    available may result in more escaped fires, higher suppression costs,
    and damage to resources. Much of this depends on the overall severity
    of the fire season.
        Question. For the last 10 years, what was the level of funding for
    Fire Preparedness and what percent of the Most Efficient Level did it
    represent?
        Answer. The level of funding and percent of Most Efficient Level
    fluctuates from year to year. The 10-year averages for fiscal years
    1990 to 1999 are $259 million for Fire Preparedness (WFPR) which
    equates to an average of 87 percent of Most Efficient Level (MEL).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent  of
               Fiscal year                 WFPR         MEL          MEL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1990.............................        176.2        196.2           90
    1991.............................        179.9        200.1           90
    1992.............................        187.5        219.5           85
    1993.............................        247.9        275.3           90
    1994.............................        257.7        294.2           88
    1995.............................        285.1        311.4           92
    1996.............................        295.3        328.0           90
    1997.............................        319.3        341.0           94
    1998.............................        319.3        390.0           82
    1999.............................        324.9        430.0           76
    10 Year Average..................        259.3        298.5           87
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The Department of Interior (DOI) is funding its Fire
    Preparedness operations at 83 percent of the MEL, why is there such a
    discrepancy between Forest Service funding and DOI?
        Answer. The Forest Service funding in terms of MEL was comparable
    to DOI up through the fiscal year 1998 budget year, and has averaged 87
    percent over a ten-year period. Decreases in program level have
    occurred very recently as balances with other equally important
    programs within the Forest Service occur, while program and
    inflationary cost continue to arise. In addition, DOI's budget
    allocation was more generous than the Forest Service's.
        Financing a higher percent of MEL should manifest itself as more
    available initial attack firefighters. Depending upon the severity of
    the fire season, the size of firefighting organization available for
    initial attack purposes that is funded by a lower percent of MEL in
    fire preparedness could result in more escaped fires, increased costs
    of fire suppression, and greater changes to resource values.
        Question. Does this mean that DOI is more concerned about limiting
    damage from fire than the Forest Service?
        Answer. No. Both DOI and USDA are equally concerned about limiting
    damage from fire as evidenced by continuing interagency efforts to
    improve wildland fire policy and program implementation. But, again,
    DOI's overall allocation was higher, giving that agency the ability to
    fund the program more aggressively.
        Question. Are there any problems caused by this discrepancy in the
    level of preparedness between the Forest Service and DOI?
        Answer. The Interior and Agriculture Departments have an effective
    working relationship, which has not been affected in prior years by
    different funding levels, and should not be affected in fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. Are the costs for maintaining the same percentage of MEL
    increasing more rapidly for the Forest Service than the DOI? If so,
    why? What can be done to resolve this problem?
        Answer. Yes. The Forest Service organizations and program is larger
    than DOI's, therefore issues are magnified in relation to budget.
    Implementation of actions recommended in various management review
    studies, since the catastrophic fire season of 1994, has resulted in
    increased costs primarily related to personnel, safety and training.
    Also, in the past, fire programs were heavily dependent on shared
    personnel from other program areas such as timber, wildlife, and
    engineering. As these programs decrease, fulltime fire positions are
    needed and greater fixed costs are required to maintain basic program
    capability.
        The Subcommittee is also concerned about how the Forest Service is
    planning to reduce the fire hazard on Western forestlands in the
    future. Last year, the Congress fully funded the hazardous fuels
    reduction program ($67,000,000). However, the GAO recently testified
    that ``the Forest Service lacks a cohesive strategy for reducing fuels
    on our National Forests'' and that the Forest Service current plans may
    significantly underestimate the number of acres on which fuels must be
    reduced annually to adequately reduce fire hazards.
        Question. Is GAO correct in its assessment? If GAO is incorrect,
    why?
        Answer. The GAO testimony was based on a draft report, which was
    subsequently released in April 1999 as GAO/RCED-99-65. In the Forest
    Service letter offering comments on the draft which is included on
    pages 50 and 51 of the final report, we state that: ``We feel that the
    GAO report is very comprehensive and does a good job of covering the
    problem. GAO has effectively portrayed the existing forest conditions
    that exist throughout much of the interior West forests. We agree with
    the principal findings of the report.''
        We have a strategy in place to accomplish our fuel reduction
    program. We will complete a plan similar to the one suggested in the
    report that will provide a more accurate estimate of the acres at risk
    and a cohesive plan to address the problem. However, not all acres in
    the entire system will be treated as this may require management
    activities that may jeopardize other ecological or human values. Acres
    treated will be decided after the appropriate science, environmental,
    and public input.
        Question. What is the current Forest Service strategy for reducing
    fuels on the National Forests?
        Answer. The Forest Service's long-term trend is to increase the
    fuel reduction to 3 million acres by 2005. Reduction of fuels is
    through a combination of treatment methods including prescribed burning
    and mechanical treatments. In addition, the plan noted above will
    outline all Wildland Fire and NFS programs that contribute to meeting
    this objective. The Forest Service has undertaken a Risk Assessment
    effort to identify high-risk areas and opportunities for priority
    treatments. We will use the information from the assessment process to
    help prioritize the allocation of funds and to address future funding
    requirements.
        Question. What are the Forest Service's specific plans to address
    the serious fire hazards in the interior West? Does the budget
    adequately reflect the significance of this problem?
        Answer. The Forest Service has undertaken a Risk Mapping effort to
    identify high-risk areas and opportunities for priority treatments. The
    President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes $65 million for hazardous
    fuel reduction. This level of funding is in line with the planned
    increases in funding needed to increase accomplishment from 350,000
    acres per year in fiscal year 1994 to 3.0 million acres per year in
    fiscal year 2005.
        Question. On how many acres of land must fuels be reduced annually
    in order to adequately reduce fire hazards?
        Answer. The long-term goal is 3 million acres per year by 2005. The
    Chief has testified that 39 million acres of critical forested
    ecosystems are in an unhealthy condition and are at a greater risk of
    severe damage from fires. As the risk assessments are completed we
    expect a more accurate figure, but feel that at least 3 million acres
    per year of accomplishment is needed to address the problem.
        Question. On how many acres of land are fuels reduced using the
    following methods: (1) mechanical treatments, (2) prescribed burning,
    and (3) timber sales? Please break these numbers out by Region. What
    are the average costs for each of these treatments on a per acre basis?
    Please provide these numbers broken out by Region.
        Answer. We do not collect hazardous fuel reduction accomplishment
    data by type of treatment, such as numbers of acres treated by burning
    versus those treated by mechanical means. The fiscal year 1998 cost per
    acre by region, averaged for all types of treatments, is as follows: R-
    1 $52; R-2 $68; R-3 $62; R-4 $52; R-5 $124; R-6 $73; R-8 $12; R-9 $56;
    R-10 $240. In fiscal year 1998 over 932,000 acres of the 1.4 million
    acres accomplished were in R-8; which contributed to a national average
    cost to $33. Timber sales are not reported in this category.
        Question. What is the agency's assessment of the fire risk in New
    Mexico?
        Answer. We are in close contact with the southwest Regional Office
    (AZ and NM). While parts of the Region are in extreme fire danger,
    other portions have received precipitation which has moderated
    conditions. The potential for a more active than normal wildland fire
    season is greater than normal, so we have been working with the Region
    to minimize fire risk.
        Question. How does the current situation compare to prior years?
        Answer. Current conditions reflect those seen in 1996. That year
    was characterized by an early start to the wildland fire season which
    had more large wildfires than normal, and had a length longer than
    normal.
        Question. What additional actions is the agency taking to respond
    to the increased fire hazard caused by the drought?
        Answer. Beginning in March, the Forest Service has used the
    Severity authorization to support deployment and early hiring of fire
    prevention and firefighting resources in the Region. To date, $4
    million has been sent to the Region. This money is used to offset
    extreme fire danger conditions that occur from time to time across the
    country. The southwest Region is using the severity authorization to
    hire their fire prevention and initial attack firefighting resources
    earlier than normal. The Forest Service, States of Arizona and New
    Mexico, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service are
    coordinating their activities in regards to fire prevention, public
    service announcements, and deployment of firefighting resources.
    Severity authorizations will allow the Forest Service and States to
    minimize the risk of wildland fire occurrence.
        Fire lookouts are in place and initial attack resources are
    deployed throughout the Region.
        Question. What, if any, plans are there for the Forest Service to
    take advantage of advanced satellite technology used by other agencies
    to detect and fight fires?
        Answer. The Forest Service does utilize some of the satellite
    remote sensing from other government agencies, such as National Oceanic
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautic and Space
    Administration (NASA) , and the military.
        Question. What obstacles does the agency face in attempting to
    access this technology? Would the use of such technology increase costs
    to the fire program?
        Answer. We have not encountered any obstacles to date, and would
    not expect any increased cost to utilizing these technologies unless
    the agencies providing the service were to begin charging for the
    information.
        Question. Would particular regions of the country benefit more than
    others from the use of this more advanced technology, i.e., more remote
    areas where there is a less significant Forest Service presence on the
    ground?
        Answer. We have a fairly reliable detection system for most regions
    of the country. The technology would be most useful for mapping
    existing large fires.
                                   recreation
        According to the agency's budget, the Forest Service is the largest
    supplier of outdoor recreation in the Nation with close to 900 million
    visitors annually. The agency's own projections are that demand for
    recreation is increasing rapidly. The Service has also stated that the
    business of recreation can provide similar economic benefits to
    communities that prior uses, like timber, did. Indeed, the budget
    states that, ``Tourism and recreation provide economic contributions
    equal to, if not greater than, traditional public land uses.''
        Question. If demands on the recreation program are increasing
    significantly and it supports economic benefits to local communities,
    why is the Recreation Management request frozen at last year's level?
        Answer. Recreation is just one of many programs funded by the
    Forest Service budget. It is one of the emphasis areas in the Forest
    Service Natural Resource Agenda. The other emphasis areas are: roads,
    watershed health and restoration, and sustainable forest management.
    Other agency priorities identified by Secretary Glickman and Under
    Secretary Lyons in the hearing before the House Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee on March 10, 1999, are lands legacy; research; and
    accountability.
        The Administration has also proposed a series of legislative
    proposal that should help provide for long-term funding stability for
    much of the recreational program's activities (e.g. concession reform
    legislation).
        Recreation is just one of many programs funded by the Forest
    Service budget. In fiscal year 2000 the Agency has five major
    priorities: watershed health; roads; lands legacy; research; and
    accountability. While it is true that recreation programs are funded
    near the fiscal year 1999 level, other activities of lesser priority
    are proposed for funding decreases.
        Question. What economic impact will this have on communities that
    depend on recreational use of the National Forests to generate revenue?
        Answer. Since the Recreation Management budget has remained flat we
    see no change. However, over time because of the backlog in maintenance
    and the effects of inflation on a level budget there could be some
    decline in the quality of recreation experience for visitors. In
    addition, many private tourism/recreation related businesses (outfitter
    guides, resorts, concessions and lodges, etc.) rely on quality forest
    landscapes for their market niche in local, national and sometimes
    international tourism markets.
        Question. While the Recreation Management line item was held level,
    the budget asks for an additional $7,000,000 for Wilderness Management.
    What is the historic wilderness recreation use over the last 10 years?
        Answer. The agency believes that funding for wilderness has not
    been what it needed to be over the past decade to maintain pristine
    conditions that the public expects and the law requires. Therefore, an
    increase was made to help bring it up to a responsible level.
        The estimated wilderness use for the Forest Service, over the last
    10 years of available data, are reported below:

                                  [In millions]

                                                        Estimated Wilderness
            Year                                                   RVD's \1\
    1986....................................................      11,489,709
    1987....................................................      11,634,201
    1988....................................................      12,022,736
    1989....................................................      12,221,059
    1990....................................................      12,288,321
    1991....................................................      12,356,925
    1992....................................................      12,667,430
    1993....................................................      12,815,143
    1994....................................................      13,889,700
    1995....................................................      13,862,800
    1996....................................................      13,889,700

    \1\ ``Recreation Visitor Day'' is a statistical reporting unit
    consisting of 12 visitor hours. A visitor hour is the presence of a
    person on an area of land or water for the purpose of engaging in one or
    more recreation activities during a period time aggregating 60 minutes.

        Question. What is the top priority for the agency with respect to
    wilderness recreation use?
        Answer. To provide, consistent with management of the area as
    wilderness, opportunities for public use, enjoyment, and understanding
    of the wilderness, through experiences that depend upon a wilderness
    setting. Also, with an ever increasing population, people expect the
    Forest Service to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
    primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
        Question. What is the increase in the number of wilderness areas
    created and managed over the last 5 years?
        Answer. Seventy-six wildernesses were created in the five year
    period 1993-1998. Eight of these are managed by the USDA Forest
    Service, four are jointly managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau
    of Land Management, and the remaining 73 are managed by the Bureau of
    Land Management or the National Park Service. There are currently 624
    wildernesses in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
        Question. Is recreational use in wilderness areas increasing more
    than use in other areas of the National Forests? If so, by how much?
        Answer. Records do not exist that permit an accurate comparison of
    National Forest recreation and wilderness recreation use trends.
    Recreation use estimates are not available beyond 1996; from 1994
    through 1996, a comparison of the rate of increase of recreation use in
    wilderness and in other areas of the National Forests, expressed in
    recreation visitor days, shows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Recreation
                                                     Wilderness      use
                         Year                        recreation    (outside
                                                        Use      wilderness)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1994..........................................       13,889      835,238
    1996..........................................       14,512      859,210
    Percent Increase 1994-1996....................          4.4          2.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This comparison would indicate that wilderness recreation use is
    increasing at a greater rate (4.4 percent) than National Forest
    recreation use (2.8 percent).
        Question. How does the magnitude of economic benefits that local
    communities derive from wilderness use compare to the rest of the
    recreation program?
        Answer. The Forest Service has not calculated a comparison of
    economic benefits to local communities derived from wilderness use as
    compared to the rest of the recreation program. Such a comparison would
    be difficult for a number of reasons; one reason is that many people
    visit wilderness and other national forest areas in the same trip; the
    economic benefits are therefore not distinct to one area or the other.
    The question also limits the source of the economic benefit to the
    actual on-site, recreation visitation activity and excludes other
    wilderness or national forest sources of economic benefit, such as
    effect on the value of surrounding private lands (and resultant tax
    base).
        In terms of total gross magnitude, one can presume the economic
    benefits to communities from wilderness use is less than that from the
    rest of the recreation program for the following reasons: (1) total
    numbers of recreationists (in 1996, estimated recreation visitor days
    in wilderness were 14,512 million, compared to 859,210 million for
    general National Forest recreation), and (2) total land area
    (designated wilderness is only approximately 18 percent of the National
    Forest System). However, areas such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
    in Minnesota, and other large wildernesses where people need to pack in
    such things as canoes, other equipment, and food, may benefit more
    economically per wilderness visit than those where people drive through
    a national forest and stop only briefly.
        Question. Estimates from the agency indicate that the use of
    concessionaires has increased by 70 percent over the last decade. Prior
    to the implementation of the Recreation Fee Demonstration program, how
    did the Forest Service treat monies it received from concessionaires
    vis a vis the 25 percent payments to states, i.e., were these monies
    subject to the 25 percent payments?
        Answer. Prior to the Recreation Fee Demonstration program, all
    rental fees for concession based authorizations were subject to the 25
    percent payments to states. The exception were authorizations issued
    under the Granger/Thye Act, which allows permit holders to do work on
    government owned structures they occupy in lieu of fees. Campground
    concessions are the activity most associated with the Granger/Thye Act.
        Question. What, if any, portion of receipts from concessionaires
    could be retained for administrative or other costs by the Forest
    Service prior to the Recreation Fee Demonstration program?
        Answer. As mentioned above, the Granger/Thye Act allows for the
    permit holder to do work on government owned facilities they occupy. In
    some cases, the permit holder funds the agency to conduct the work for
    them. This is generally the case when the agency has the expertise to
    do the work. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act allows for 15
    percent of fees collected to be retained by the unit to cover the cost
    of collecting such fees.
        Question. If a portion could be retained, what statutory authority
    provided for this?
        Answer. See answer to previous question.
        Question. What economic impact has the implementation of the
    Recreation Fee Demonstration program had on the 25 percent Fund
    payments to states? What are the future impacts likely to be?
        Answer. Congress exempted the Recreation Fee Demonstration program
    from the 25 percent Payment to States requirement when it passed Public
    Law 104-134 in 1996. In the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 budgets, the
    Administration proposed legislation that would provide a historic level
    of return to States as a replacement for the 25 percent payment to
    States statutory authority.
        In fiscal year 1998, the Forest Service Recreation Fee
    Demonstration program reduced historic payments to States by an
    estimated $1 million, as $4 million of historic fee sites were
    converted to Fee Demo Projects. Approximately $16 million in new fees
    collected in fiscal year 1998 were never subject to the 25 percent
    payment requirement. Recreation contributions to historic payments to
    States make up less than 1 percent of total historic returns--the bulk
    of payments have come from Agency commodity programs.
        If in the future all remaining Agency managed recreation fee sites
    were transferred to the Fee Demonstration Program, historic payments to
    States would be further reduced by approximately $1.4 million (25
    percent of the remaining $5.4 million of historic receipts not
    currently covered by Fee Demo).
        Question. What would the impact be of making receipts from the
    Recreation Fee Demonstration program subject to the 25 percent Fund
    payments to states? (Please provide a specific estimate of the fiscal
    impacts on the program.)
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the Forest Service collected $20.8
    million gross recreation fee demonstration receipts. If that entire
    amount was subject to a 25 percent return to States assessment,
    approximately $5.2 million would be available to the States. This
    figure would increase as future receipts increased. Note that Agency
    available funds would decline by the same amount, limiting Agency
    ability to provide visible improvements desired by fee paying visitors.
    This could greatly reduce public support for the fee system and might
    cause future reductions in receipts.
        In fiscal year 1998, costs for the Forest Service to collect and
    process the fees collected were about 17 percent of gross receipts. If
    25 percent of receipts are shifted to the States only 58 percent of the
    gross fees paid by the recreating public would be available to spend on
    recreation maintenance and improvements. Moreover, when the public
    visits, many are in-state and county residents who may be paying sales
    and income taxes to the state and counties. Also, out of state visitors
    are utilizing local hotels, restaurants and other facilities which help
    counties and states. If the forests cannot use the money to maintain
    the quality of these sites, people may choose to recreate elsewhere.
    Therefore, the local governments would lose the greater economic
    benefit of the people temporarily residing in these communities.
        Question. Does the Forest Service have the discretion to do this
    now, or would it require statutory authorization?
        Answer. Public Law 104-134 explicitly exempts Recreation Fee
    Demonstration receipts from the 25 percent payment to States statutory
    authority. The Forest Service does not have the authority to give 25
    percent of recreation fee demonstration receipts to the States. It
    would take new legislation to remove the exemption.
        Question. Recently, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a ruling
    that will require Forest Service concessionaires to pay wages to their
    employees as set out in the Service Contract Act. What is the impact of
    this decision on the Recreation program?
        Answer. It is too early in its implementation to make any
    predictions on levels of impacts. Possible effects include no bids due
    to some offerings now being uneconomical, and where there are bids, bid
    amounts could be reduced to cover the increased costs.
        Question. What are the Forest Service's estimates on the number of
    concessionaires who would not re-bid on existing contracts if they are
    required to pay wages pursuant to the Service Contract Act?
        Answer. It is too early to make any estimates on impacts. Each
    concession offering is unique in its content, therefore the Agency has
    no basis to make estimates. To date pursuant to the Service Contract
    Act, five offerings have been awarded and three offerings did not
    receive bids.
        Question. What would be the impact on the Forest Service budget, if
    the agency has to operate these areas out of appropriated dollars?
        Answer. For reasons stated above, a value can not be calculated.
    However, should concession opportunities receive no bids and the agency
    field unit determines the campground should remain open to meet public
    demands, appropriated funds could be used. Currently, the agency is
    developing data to determine what it costs the agency to operate
    campgrounds. Preliminary information is anticipated to be available in
    July of 1999.
        Question. What, if anything, is the Forest Service doing to
    mitigate the effects of the Department of Labor's decision on the
    Recreation program?
        Answer. Because the level of effects is not known the agency has
    multi-faceted approach: (1) Implement the Service Contract Act
    requirements as existing authorizations come due. This will require a
    minimum five years cycle time. (2) Use the Recreation Fee Demonstration
    program as a safety net to allow operation of selected sites by the
    agency should no bidders come forward. As a temporary safety net, the
    agency is using the Recreation Fee Demonstration program in funding
    operations by allowing fees collected to be used, without further
    appropriation for site operations. (3) Over the next two years analyze
    the effects and adjust the program with a focus to maintain the
    concession campground program within the constraints of statutes and
    regulations.
        Question. Last year, the agency instituted a national policy
    banning fixed anchors in wilderness areas of the national forests
    without any public input. Subsequently, the agency postponed
    implementation of this national ban while it goes through a negotiated
    rulemaking process which includes the public, climbers and
    environmentalists.
        What is the current status of this process?
        Answer. The Forest Service is involved in a negotiated rulemaking
    process to determine the appropriate limits on the placement of fixed
    anchors for climbing in wilderness areas of national forests. The
    following items have been developed by the Forest Service and are
    awaiting approval by the Department of Agriculture: We are awaiting
    approval from the Department of Agriculture on the FACA requirements
    for the negotiated rulemaking and the Notice of Intent (NOI). Upon
    approval, the NOI will be published in the Federal register, and the
    public will have the opportunity to nominate members to the committee.
    The names of committee members will then be published in the Federal
    Register and announced through news releases. News releases and FS
    Today website postings will also be used to announce committee meetings
    and progress on the rulemaking.
        We are targeting September through October 1999 as the timeframe
    for committee meetings, November 1999 for the final committee
    recommendations, and June 2000 for the publication of a final rule in
    the Federal Register.
        Question. What is the likelihood that a policy can be developed
    which satisfies all stakeholders?
        Answer. This question is best answered by reading the Convening
    Report, ``The Potential for a Negotiated Rulemaking on Fixed Anchors
    for Climbing in Wilderness Areas Administered by the Forest Service'',
    January 27, 1999, by Philip J. Harter, Mediation Consortium. The Forest
    Service contracted with Mr. Harter for this report as the first phase
    of the negotiated rulemaking. Mr. Harter investigated all aspects of
    the fixed anchor in wilderness issue and interviewed many of the
    stakeholders; his findings, impressions and recommendations are
    included in the Report. The conclusion of the Report acknowledges that
    there are significant aspects of the fixed anchor issue that will make
    it difficult to reach agreement, but states, ``In sum, not only does a
    negotiated rulemaking appear feasible, it appears to be the recommended
    procedure. But, a reg-neg will be successful only in developing a
    policy to manage the use of fixed anchors. Negotiated rulemaking is not
    the means to issue a rule prohibiting them altogether nor to announce
    that there will be no restrictions whatever. If, as an initial matter,
    the Forest Service determines that the Act or its internal policies
    require either of these endpoints, then reg-neg is not the route to
    take.''
        The Forest Service is committed to the success of a negotiated
    rulemaking to draft a rule for fixed anchors in wilderness, working for
    an outcome that is recognized as a success for all stakeholders.
        Question. A few weeks ago, news accounts reported that the Forest
    Service is considering limiting hikers on some of the most popular
    trails in the Mt. Hood National Forest by as much as 90 percent. More
    recently, it has been reported that the Forest Service is re-thinking
    its proposal.
        What is the current status of proposals to limit access on the Mt.
    Hood National Forest?
        Answer. Over the last five years, the Mt. Hood National Forest has
    worked with a variety of interested people and groups in workshops,
    field trips, camp trips and interviews to prepare an environmental
    assessment (EA) to address how to best protect wilderness character in
    the Mt. Hood, Mark O. Hatfield and Salmon-Huckleberry Wildernesses. The
    draft EA was released in January 1999. The Forest then invited
    interested publics to review and comment on the proposal. Information
    was provided through mailings, web sites, open houses, direct contacts
    and other means. Written comments to the proposal were due on April 1,
    1999.
        The Mt. Hood National Forest is now evaluating over 600 written
    comments and input received, including those from over 400 people who
    attended three public meetings. Preliminary impressions include that
    there is broad public support for limiting use to protect physical
    wilderness resources. However, there is considerable opposition to
    maintaining solitude standards in areas that have historically
    experienced much higher levels of use, such as the south side Mt. Hood,
    climbing in the Mt Hood Wilderness, and on the Ramona Falls trail.
        The Mt. Hood National Forest is still working on the analysis of
    public comment and, based on that comment, a new draft EA will not be
    ready for public review until late November, at the earliest.
        Question. How much of the proposed policy is based on tangible on-
    the-ground impacts which have degraded the resource versus subjective
    notions of solitude?
        Answer. The proposed Mt. Hood National Forest policy was based on
    approximately 50 percent on-the-ground impacts and 50 percent on the
    need to provide opportunities for solitude. The basis of the proposal
    varied and depended on the needs and conditions on individual sites.
    Examples include the south side Mt. Hood, a durable terrain (ice and
    rock) with high use levels (over 600 climbers on a May or June weekend)
    where the proposed limit was predominately based on limiting
    encounters, and on trails and popular camping sites where problems with
    vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and excessive human debris are
    the factors limiting use.
        Question. How does the Forest Service define solitude, if at all?
        Answer. National Forest Service Wilderness Policy (Forest Service
    Manual 2320) does not contain a definition of solitude. The solitude
    component of wilderness management originates from the Wilderness Act
    of 1964, which defines wilderness in part as an area that ``has
    outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
    type of recreation;'' (Public Law 88-577, Sec. 2 (c)(2)). The American
    Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1982), defines solitude as,
    ``The state of being alone or remote from others; isolation,'' but
    acknowledges in explanatory notes, ``Solitude implies the absence of
    all other persons but is otherwise not very specific.'' Individual
    wildernesses treat the concept of solitude, with public participation,
    during the planning process. A Limits of Acceptable Change approach is
    often used. Solitude is defined according to specific opportunities and
    resources for each wilderness, and standards identified for focusing
    management on protecting wilderness resource values and providing
    quality wilderness experiences for visitors.
        Question. If solitude is used as basis for establishing the maximum
    numbers of visitors, what is the methodology for measuring ``solitude''
    and determining the appropriate level of visitors?
        Answer. The methodology has developed from work conducted by Forest
    Service scientists, wilderness managers' experience, and years of input
    by wilderness visitors and interested others. Although there have been
    a few attempts to study wilderness visitors' perceptions of solitude
    directly, most research has focused on number of encounters between
    groups rather than on solitude. Researchers have typically assumed that
    opportunities for solitude should generally increase as encounters with
    other groups decrease. Because numbers of encounters can be more
    directly influenced by management actions than solitude can, managing
    the number of encounters has become the most accepted means of managing
    opportunities for solitude. Wilderness staffs can manage the number of
    encounters informally, by such means as suggesting to visitors
    alternative trailheads to reduce numbers at one that is overused, or
    rerouting trails to change travel patterns (and therefore encounters)
    along popular routes. Formal controls, such as a permit system limiting
    the total number of visitors in the wilderness at any one time, are
    generally the last to be imposed.
        Question. To what extent does the agency base public access
    decisions in wilderness areas nationwide on the concept of solitude
    versus physical degradation of the resource?
        Answer. There is no National policy or standard as the basis of
    public access decisions in wilderness and we have no plans to establish
    such a policy. Since the early 1980's the Forest Service has used the
    ``Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)'' planning and management process
    developed by Forest Service wilderness researchers to address
    recreation use in wilderness as part of the forest planning process.
    Both the concept of solitude and the physical degradation of the
    resources are considered. The LAC process provides for local decisions
    including public involvement on a wilderness by wilderness basis to
    determine the limits of recreation use and environmental impact that a
    wilderness should sustain within the framework of the Wilderness Act.
                              roadless moratorium
        In January of last year, despite the request of a number of members
    from both the House and Senate, to work with the Forest Service in
    developing a revised road policy, the agency unilaterally issued a
    proposed policy imposing a moratorium on road construction in roadless
    areas.
        Question. What, if any, timber sales or road building were done in
    any areas defined by this proposed policy over the last 15 months?
    Please provide a complete list of all National Forests in which timber
    sales or road building took place in areas defined by the proposed
    policy issued in January, 1998.
        Answer. We do not have a list of projects that took place within
    areas covered by the proposed interim roads rule published in January,
    1998, since the policy was proposed and did not apply to, or affect,
    any projects in fiscal year 1998. We did not collect information
    pertinent to projects that may have been subject to the roads rule
    since the rule was not in effect.
        In late January, just before the Service announced the roadless
    moratorium the agency briefed a number of Senate staff and suggested
    that the impact of the moratorium in fiscal year 1999 would be the
    cancellation of between 160 and 240 MMBF of timber sales. A press
    release issued by the agency suggested that about 200 MMBF of fiscal
    year 1999 timber sale volume would be canceled.
        Question. How much volume has been, or is now likely to be,
    canceled in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The numbers quoted in the preface to the question need to
    be clarified. These were estimates for the entire 18-month period
    affected by the suspension based on the environmental assessment and
    preliminary estimates from the field. Following publication of the
    interim rule in the Federal Register on February 12, 1999, each
    national forest evaluated their proposed projects to determine which
    projects would be suspended. This analysis was completed in early
    March. The forests identified timber sales with an estimated volume of
    about 219 million board feet that would be subject to the suspension
    over the next 18 months. Of this amount approximately 96 million board
    feet was tentatively scheduled to be offered for sale in fiscal year
    1999 and subject to the suspension. The remaining 123 million board
    feet was identified from timber sales subject to the suspension and
    proposed for offer in fiscal year 2000. A final volume estimate is not
    possible before the end of the fiscal year because forests have the
    ability to modify sales affected by the policy or substitute future
    sales for any delayed sales.
        Question. Please provide the following information: (1) Copies of
    the 6-month and 12-month Periodic Timber Sale Program Announcements
    generated by each forest that has, or will be, canceling timber sales
    in fiscal year 1999; (2) a copy of the revised 6-month and 12 month
    Periodic Reports which were generated after the Roadless Moratorium was
    announced; and 3) an explanation of why each sale was, or will be
    canceled tied to the different land classifications included in the
    Moratorium.
        Answer. Projects are delayed or curtailed for a number of reasons,
    such as, cost of implementation, lack of feasibility, lack of funds,
    environmental risk, or public opposition. In order to address the
    potential impacts resulting from the interim rule, each forest
    evaluated their proposed projects in light of the interim rule. Each
    affected project was identified along with the miles of road
    construction and reconstruction and any timber volume associated with
    suspended timber roads.
        Please refer to Enclosure 1, on following pages.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.003

        Question. How much volume and on which forests were timber sales
    canceled due to roadless area concerns in fiscal year 1998? In support
    of the agency's answer, please provide the following information for
    the fiscal year 1998 timber sale program: (1) Copies of the six and
    twelve month Periodic Timber Sale Announcements generated on each
    National Forest in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998; and (2) a
    list of sales, and volume of those sales, which were scheduled to sell
    in fiscal year 1998 but that were not offered. Please include an
    explanation on whether or not the canceled sale(s) fall within any of
    the classifications that are included in the Roadless Moratorium. This
    information should be displayed on a forest by forest and sale by sale
    basis.
        Answer. Projects were delayed or curtailed for a number of reasons
    in fiscal year 1998, such as cost of implementation, lack of
    feasibility, lack of funds, environmental risk, or public opposition.
    The interim rule on the temporary suspension of road construction and
    reconstruction in unroaded areas was not adopted until March 1, 1999,
    therefore, fiscal year 1998 projects could not have been delayed
    because of the interim rule.
        Question. Please also provide a listing of the average stumpage
    price paid for sales sold in fiscal year 1998 on these forests for any
    forest that did not fulfill their target (as articulated in the
    Periodic Timber Sale Program Announcements for fiscal year 1998).
        Answer. There were no sales subject to Section 3006 of the fiscal
    year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act, since the interim rule was
    not in effect for fiscal year 1998. Therefore, a report on compensation
    was not applicable.
        Section 3006 of the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations
    bill required the Forest Service to compensate counties for funds lost
    as a result of delayed or halted timber sales caused by the roadless
    moratorium in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. The agency was to
    report the amount needed for such compensation to the Appropriations
    Committee. The Committee has not received a report from the Forest
    Service.
        Question. Has the agency done an analysis of how many sales were
    delayed or halted over the last fiscal year as a result of the roadless
    policy and what impact this had on 25 percent fund payments to
    counties?
        Answer. There were no fiscal year 1998 timber sales subject to
    Section 3006 of the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act,
    since the interim rule was not in effect for fiscal year 1998.
    Therefore, a report on compensation was not applicable.
        Question. If no such activity occurred, does that not, in fact,
    mean that there were timber sales halted as a result of the roadless
    policy and that the affected counties are entitled to compensation from
    the Forest Service?
        Answer. See answer to previous question.
        Question. The Forest Service's own estimates are that 170-260
    million board feet will be delayed or halted by the interim rule
    implementing the roadless moratorium in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
    year 2000. How much will be delayed or halted in fiscal year 1999? How
    much will be delayed or halted in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The estimate of 170-260 million board feet stated in the
    question was a preliminary estimate based on the environmental
    analysis. Following publication of the interim rule in the Federal
    Register on February 12, 1999, each national forest evaluated their
    proposed projects to determine which projects would be suspended. This
    analysis was completed in early March. The forests identified timber
    sales with an estimated volume of about 219 million board feet that
    would be subject to the suspension over the next 18 months. Of this
    amount approximately 96 million board feet was tentatively scheduled to
    be offered for sale in fiscal year 1999 and subject to the suspension.
    The remaining 123 million board feet was identified from timber sales
    subject to the suspension and proposed for offer in fiscal year 2000. A
    final volume estimate is not possible before the end of the fiscal year
    because forests have the ability to modify sales affected by the policy
    and substitute future sales for any delayed sales.
        Question. Is the agency preparing a report to the Appropriations
    Committee for fiscal year 1999 on the impacts to county payments of the
    roadless moratorium? When will this report be issued?
        Answer. Yes, the agency will document the amount of any payments
    resulting from timber sales suspended because of the interim rule on
    road construction and reconstruction in unroaded areas in conformance
    with Section 3006 of the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations
    Act. The payment can not be calculated until after the end of the
    fiscal year in order to take into consideration any substitute timber
    sales, as recognized in Section 3006 (b)(2)(A)(ii). The Committees on
    Appropriations will be notified and requested to approve the use of
    funds for any payments as soon as practicable after the end of the
    fiscal year in accordance with Section 3006 (b)(2)(B).
                            financial accountability
        Recently, GAO testified that there are serious problems with
    implementing the agency's new Foundation Financial Information System
    (FFIS) accounting system which is critical to obtaining a clean audit
    opinion of the Forest Service's financial statements. In fact, GAO
    stated that because of problems with the system in the three Regions
    where it is being piloted, implementation has been postponed from
    October 1, 1998 until October 1, 1999.
        Question. Will this system be implemented agency-wide by the end of
    this fiscal year? Before it is implemented agency-wide will the agency
    be able to demonstrate that it works satisfactorily in any of the pilot
    Regions?
        Answer. Yes. Implementation of FFIS agency-wide for the Forest
    Service will begin on October 1, 1999 for fiscal year 2000.
    Implementing a new accounting system within the Forest Service is a
    complex task, requiring continuous identification and resolution of
    operational and technical issues. FFIS pilot testing within two Forest
    Service regions and one Forest Service research station has been
    operational and ongoing since October 1, 1997. These efforts have
    provided Agency managers with a wealth of knowledge on the operation
    and maintenance of FFIS. Knowledge gained and lessons learned from
    implementation efforts within pilot units have been incorporated into
    strategies for full, Agency-wide implementation of FFIS. Also, complete
    end-to-end and user acceptance testing of those FFIS system attributes
    which were not used and tested by pilot units, but will be used during
    Agency-wide implementation of FFIS, will be conducted prior to moving
    FFIS to an Agency-wide production environment on October 1, 1999. The
    agency will continue to evaluate and learn from the pilot testing
    effort right up to and into agency-wide implementation in fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. When will the agency be able to obtain a clean financial
    opinion? Besides implementation what are the primary obstacles to
    obtaining a clean opinion? What is the agency doing to remove these
    obstacles?
        Answer. Our goal is to have a ``clean'' or unqualified audit
    opinion on the agency's fiscal year 2000 financial statements. We
    recognize that this is an enormous challenge given the amount of change
    that needs to take place. One potential obstacle to obtaining a clean
    opinion could be the inconsistent application of financial management
    principles and procedures. One of the most important changes being
    implemented in fiscal year 2000 is the use of the primary purpose
    principle for funding work and the charging of expenditures. This
    change will reduce the number of lines of accounting in the system
    which will increase accountability and improve system response time.
    The agency has invested significant time and energy to ensure that this
    change is implemented correctly. A video, video guide and
    implementation document containing rationale, definitions and examples
    have been developed and distributed across the agency. An intra-agency
    web site has also been established which will contain all of this
    information as well as field-generated questions and agency-approved
    answers. Even though this shift to primary purpose is requiring many in
    the agency to re-think how they plan, fund and account for work, we are
    confident that this change will be implemented consistently and not
    prevent us from obtaining a clean audit opinion.
                                      gpra
        Question. What specific steps has the Chief taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. A series of steps are necessary to fully implement these
    measures agency-wide. As explained in our fiscal year 2000 Budget
    Justification, we are in the process of establishing an inter-
    disciplinary team of specialists from all levels of the agency to
    ensure implementation of these measures. This team will develop an
    implementation plan, assign responsibility for completing tasks, and
    have coordination and oversight responsibilities. A number of specific
    implementation tasks may be worked on by that team. Tasks will include
    defining performance measures, identifying units of measure, developing
    protocols and standards for measuring and collecting, evaluating and
    reporting information. The agency also intends to work with an outside
    contractor to ensure that information system needs for implementing
    these performance measures are in place and compatible with other
    systems, including our new financial management system, FFIS.
        The agency's leadership is identifying the key long-term measures
    that will be focused on in fiscal year 1999. It is expected that these
    measures will be implemented as appropriate in fiscal year 2000. During
    fiscal year 2000, another set of measures will be worked on for
    implementation in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. The performance elements of the agency's senior executive
    service contain accomplishment targets for each of the GPRA performance
    indicators which tie directly back to the goals and objectives in the
    Forest Service GPRA Strategic and Performance Plans.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. As mentioned above, SES employees receive targets for each
    of the GPRA performance measures. They are held accountable for
    achieving their assigned performance goals. In addition, field unit
    performance accomplishments from the previous year are used to assign
    performance goals and distribute funding to the field units in the
    following year. Those units that demonstrate the ability to perform are
    assigned higher targets and may be more competitive for higher funding
    in subsequent years.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    the funding the agency request in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. Each year the starting point for the President's Budget is
    based upon prior year accomplishment information. This forms the basis
    for the instructions to the field. Field units respond with any changed
    conditions, shifts in emphasis, etc. which is considered along with
    other information to develop the national levels for both funding and
    outputs. An example would be Noxious Weeds treated acres, The
    Washington Office proposed 67,000 acres as a starting point. The field
    responses indicated 51,410 acres the fiscal year 2000 request is 56,000
    acres to be accomplished.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plans?
        Answer. Using the Natural Resource Agenda, the Agency is able to
    emphasize the Results Act's goals and objectives such as Watershed
    Restoration and Recreation. We continue to refine our allocation
    criteria which allows for a more accurate reflection of regional
    workload which in turn provides for a better starting point in future
    budget proposals.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performance goals?
        Answer. To the extent possible, GPRA performance indicators, are
    linked directly to a specific GPRA goal and objective, and where
    possible link to a single budget line item.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification includes a
    section on budget structure reform. Please refer to Table 2, Outcome-
    based Performance Measurement structure.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. To the extent possible, performance measures with reliable
    data are used in the fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan. In several
    instances however, new measures are included which will require several
    years of data collection before performance trends can be evaluated.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. The agency is in the process of developing sound,
    scientific protocols for those measures that are currently not
    measured. Where measurement protocols exist, the agency is completing
    the necessary inventories to establish baseline data against which
    accomplishments can be compared.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance.
        Answer. Actual performance from previous years is used as a
    starting point for distributing targets and funding in subsequent
    years. Efforts are being made to reduce the variation or disparity
    between targets (or projections) and actual accomplishments including
    greater emphasis to line-officer performance standards.
                           state and private forestry
        The budget for the State and Private Forestry program proposes to
    spend $62 million in Land and Water Conservation funds for the Forest
    Legacy, Urban & Community Forestry, and Stewardship Incentives
    activities.
        Question. Will the agency send proposed legislative language to the
    authorizing committees to permit expenditure of these funds in this
    fashion, or is it the agency's position that the appropriations
    committee will provide it with this authority as part of the budget?
    What is the agency's rationale for this decision?
        Answer. Language is included in the fiscal year 2000 Budget
    Justification.
        Question. The budget proposes spending $50 million in State and
    Private on the Forest Legacy program which acquires conservation
    easements. This is a 600 percent increase over last year's level. What
    is the basis for providing a 600 percent increase in Forest Legacy when
    the agency has stated that there is an $8 billion backlog in road
    maintenance and a $1 billion backlog in recreation facilities
    maintenance on the lands that are already under its management
    authority?
        Answer. The President's Budget balances many important priorities
    to assure sound management across all the nation's forests. The support
    for the Forest Legacy program responds to increased demands from the
    private sector to maintain threatened habitat types and unique
    ecosystems. Since the 1996 Farm Bill, the majority of Forest Legacy
    acquisitions are in fact made by the States, not the Federal
    government. The current project list contains $85 million worth of
    potential Forest Legacy acquisitions, located in several different
    states. Some of the States have several projects on the list, others
    have only one.
        Question. Why shouldn't the agency place more emphasis on
    management of lands already under its stewardship before spending large
    amounts on the acquisition of easements on private lands?
        Answer. The Forest Service mission is to both care for federal
    lands and to assist private landowners, in cooperation with state
    partners, in the management of private forests. The Forest Legacy
    program operates in most participating states with an emphasis on
    conservation easements on private forests, leveraging additional non-
    federal funds to assure the conservation of unique and valuable forest
    lands. Legacy tracts lie within the priority areas identified when the
    state conducts an assessment of need when joining the program.
    Management of acquired tracts and easements is supported by the
    relevant state or local organization. Thus, the Forest Legacy Program
    focuses on keeping important forests in productive, private ownership
    while protecting the forest from development and fragmentation, in a
    cost-effective manner for the American public.
        We should take care of the lands we currently administer while
    acquiring the priority lands that will help the Forest Service meet it
    mission and provide for future public recreation demands. The Forest
    Service land acquisition program provides lands critical for wildlife
    habitat, watershed protection, outdoor recreation opportunities and
    improved management efficiency of adjacent National Forests.
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification states that
    over half of the funds for the Forest Legacy program are for national
    commitment and the Washington Office. What national commitment will be
    funded out of this program? How much will go to the Washington Office
    for overhead/indirect expenses?
        Answer. In keeping with the established fiscal year 2000 allocation
    process, one half of the funds will be allocated in the initial
    allocation and the balance will be allocated later to support the
    national Forest Legacy Program priorities. Please refer to pages 353
    and 354 of the fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification.
        Question. Six Regions of the Forest Service do not participate in
    the Forest Legacy program. Will states in these Regions participate in
    the future? When?
        Answer. Eight Forest Service (FS) regions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
    10), the Northeastern Area (NA), and the International Institute of
    Tropical Forestry (IITF) are the responsible field units for
    administering the Forest Legacy program. Seventeen states and
    territories from five (4, 5, 6, NA, IITF) of these ten FS units
    currently participate in the program and will be joined this fall by an
    additional six states (TN, SC, NC, MT, MN, PA), including states from
    two FS Regions (1, 8) not currently in the program. At that time there
    will be seven of ten FS units represented. Six additional states (NM,
    IA, VA, OH, GA, WI), including a state from one FS Region (3) not
    currently in the program, are interested in the program and may choose
    to prepare an Assessment of Need plan in the next year. We expect that
    a year from now eight of ten FS units will be represented.
        Question. The agency has requested a $15,000,000 increase in the
    Stewardship Incentives Program. What is the state-by-state breakdown of
    funds provided under the SIP program for fiscal years 1995-1998? What
    is the planned breakdown for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Please refer to enclosure 2, on following pages.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.005

        The fiscal year 2000 President's budget includes $5 million for the
    Stewardship Incentives Program and $10 for the Smart Growth Initiative.
        Question. Based on agency projections, what are the long term
    effects on future timber production from this program which are
    attributable to the increase in requested funding? What is the total
    number of landowners that will receive funding?
        Answer. SIP is a multi-resource program, increasing the ability of
    landowners to implement a wide variety of forest stewardship practices
    such as fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, recreational
    improvements, forest stand improvements, agroforestry, and many others.
    While we track the numbers of acres on which SIP practices are
    implemented, including forest stand improvement and reforestation, we
    do not keep statistics on the program's effects on timber production.
        Since its inception in 1991, the SIP program has enabled the States
    to assist over 36,000 landowners (an average of 5,000 landowners each
    year).
        Question. According to industry statistics, the majority of
    timberland is in private ownership (not including timber industry
    ownership). What statistics are available to identify how the SIP
    program improved productivity from these lands? If so, what do these
    statistics show?
        Answer. The Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) assists landowners
    to implement multi-resource priorities on non-industrial private forest
    land. The wide variety of practices that can be cost-shared through SIP
    include reforestation and afforestation, forest improvement, wildlife
    habitat enhancement, soil and water protection and enhancement, forest
    recreation enhancement, agroforestry, and fisheries enhancement. As of
    October 1998, close to 3.5 million acres had benefited from the
    application of one of these practices.
        The importance of USDA cost-sharing programs to the sustainable
    management of non-industrial private forests (NIPF) is great. According
    to the Sampson and DeCoster report ``Public Programs for Private
    Forestry'', USDA forestry cost-share programs have funded almost 40
    percent of all tree planting on NIPF lands in recent years. There is
    also documented evidence that, in the southern region, where NIPF
    owners hold the majority of the productive pine forest lands, both
    cost-sharing and tax credits are important in achieving reforestation
    after harvest.
        Question. Since fiscal year 1996, from which line items has the
    International Programs activity been funded? Please provide a break-out
    for each year.
        Answer. Please refer to enclosure 3, on following page, for a
    funding distribution for international activities.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.006

        Question. What are the indirect and direct costs for each line item
    within the State and Private Forestry program? Please provide a
    complete breakout. Within these two categories please also provide a
    narrative identifying what the bulk of the costs are attributable to,
    i.e., salary, rent, travel, personnel, etc.
        Answer. Current estimates for fiscal year 2000 are--

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       President's
                                          budget       Direct      Indirect
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forest Health, Federal...........       40,325       38,105        2,220
    Forest Health, Cooperative.......       21,400       21,294          106
    State Fire Assistance............       31,509       31,411           98
    Volunteer Fire Assistance........        2,001        2,000            1
    Forest Stewardship...............       28,830       26,122        2,708
    Stewardship Incentives...........       15,000       14,993            7
    Forest Legacy....................       50,012       49,982           30
    Urban & Community Forestry.......       39,540       39,360          180
    Economic Action Programs.........       16,305       16,023          282
    Pacific NW Assistance............        7,000        6,706          294
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................      251,922      245,996        5,936
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        About 2 percent of the State & Private Forestry appropriation will
    be spent on indirect costs.
        About 59 percent of the indirect portion will be spent on salary
    and benefits; 5 percent, travel; 10 percent on rents, communications,
    and utilities; 3 percent, supplies and materials; 3 percent, equipment;
    and 21 percent on other services. About 20 percent of the direct
    portion will be spent on salaries; 3 percent, travel; 60 percent,
    grants and agreements; and 17 percent on other services.
                                    research
        Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a $37,000,000
    increase for research. What are the top priorities for the research
    program for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Forest Service Research and Development needs to retain an
    array of scientific disciplines to address a range of important natural
    resource research issues. Our program is described in the fiscal year
    2000 Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations under
    four program areas: Vegetation Management and Protection research;
    Wildlife Fish, Water, and Air Research; Resource Valuation and Use
    Research; and Forest Resources Inventory and Monitoring Research. The
    Budget Justification outline program emphasis in these areas.
        Major areas of interest in the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget
    include: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ($10 million);
    Application of Mathematical Programming and Computer Simulation to
    National Forest System (NFS) Planning ($5 million); Non-native Invasive
    Species ($5 million); Climate Change Technology Initiative ($6
    million); Global Change Research Program ($6 million); Ecosystem
    Productivity ($5 million); Inventory and Monitoring ($4 million); and
    Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) ($1.2 million).
        Question. How have the priorities for the research budget changed
    from that proposed last fiscal year?
        Answer. The Forest Service remains committed to maintaining a
    strong research base capable of addressing the Nation's many competing
    priorities. Some of the increases requested, such as an additional $4
    million for forest inventory and monitoring, were also agency
    priorities last year with which Congress concurred. Some increases are
    new this year, such as the additional $10 million for wildlife and fish
    research, and represent new support within the Administration, to keep
    pace with the growing need for more research in these areas. Other
    proposed increases, such as the proposals for global change research
    and climate change technologies, represent continued Administration
    support for ongoing inter-agency science initiatives. The fiscal year
    2000 President's Budget represents a balanced set of priorities that
    collectively serve important Congressional, interest group, agency, and
    Administration priorities.
        Question. How much of the Research budget is devoted to funding of
    work by other entities like private and public universities?
        Answer. Over the past 5 years, approximately 8 to 10 percent of our
    total budget has been used to fund cooperative research with experts at
    private and public colleges and universities. Of the $37.2 million
    increase proposed in the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget, we
    estimate that $10.2 million (27.4 percent) would be used to fund
    cooperative research with universities through existing research grants
    and agreements authorities. The collaborative research envisioned
    extends across all research areas.
        Question. Is there other work being done by the Forest Service that
    could effectively be done by Universities. Please identify the
    particular work and the amount of money being proposed in this year's
    budget for this activity.
        Answer. America's forest research capacity is of significant
    concern to us. Since 1982, Forest Service Research & Development
    research capacity has decreased by 50 percent. Anecdotal evidence from
    our university collaborators indicates that their capacity has also
    declined this decade. Industry and interest group research capacity
    ranges from limited to non-existent. Our concern over this shrinking
    capacity led us to commission a study by the National Research Council
    to formally document the scope of the situation and recommend areas
    where research capacity needs to be buttressed and rebuilt--at
    universities and in the Forest Service--to meet America's forest
    research needs in the 21st Century. We expect this study to be
    completed prior to Congress considering the fiscal year 2001
    President's Budget. Results from that study will provide a clearer and
    more specific answer to this question than can be given today.
        At present, when in-house scientific capacity does not exist or the
    existing work load does not permit for the research to be done, we seek
    expertise from university scientists through cooperative grants and
    agreements. Over the past 5 years, approximately 8 to 10 percent of our
    total budget has been allocated to colleges and universities for Grants
    and Agreements. Of the $37.2 million increase proposed, we estimate
    that $10.2 million (27.4 percent) will be used for cooperative research
    with universities.
        Question. Given the possibility of leveraging funds, shouldn't the
    agency attempt to maximize the amount of work it funds at these
    institutions? If not, why?
        Answer. In addressing natural resource issues, we carefully
    determine the most appropriate level of collaboration with university
    partners. Leveraging occurs in a number of ways. We share some research
    equipment with universities, which enables them and us to accomplish
    work that we would not be able to afford to do separately. We provide
    field research sites on our experimental forests for university
    researchers. For example, there are over 125 university collaborators
    working with us at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire.
    Because many of our research units are co-located on university
    campuses, we leverage each other's expertise in a number of ways, such
    as having our scientists serve as graduate student advisors and hosting
    university scientists on sabbaticals. A major strength of in-house
    Forest Service research is our ability to pursue long-term studies.
    Field experiments installed on the Bartlett Experimental Forest, New
    Hampshire, in the 1930s are still being actively followed by a third-
    generation of agency researchers. University institutional capacity to
    do research over extended periods is significantly lower than Forest
    Service capacity. Graduate students only work on a single project for 3
    to 5 years. Further, new university professors who are struggling to
    gain tenure in 3 to 7 years need to show immediate results and
    immediate impact and thus have little initial interest in picking up
    long-term studies of their predecessors unless results are close at
    hand. These factors predispose universities to conduct relatively
    short-term, often low-risk, research in contrast to the longer-term,
    higher-risk research often undertaken by the Forest Service. Given
    these differences, we do try to utilize university professors and
    graduate students in situations where there are mutual benefits to both
    of us so that the federal investments are leveraged to the extent
    possible. By doing so, we strengthen and nurture strong partnerships
    with universities.
        Question. The Forest Inventory program currently operates on a 10-
    12 year cycle. What would be the cost to the program of conducting the
    inventory on 5-year cycle?
        Answer. Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of
    1998l passed last June mandated that a Strategic Plan be prepared
    describing how the Forest Service could put its national FIA/FHM
    inventory program on an annualized 5-year cycle. This Plan submitted to
    Congress on April 7, 1999 indicates that this inventory cycle
    implemented uniformly for the entire country would cost $82 million
    annually. Conference language accompanying this Bill does allow
    departure from this cycle when deemed appropriate by State Foresters,
    and based on State Forester preferences, a program costing $56 million
    is preferred. This program would provide a base Federal program with a
    7-year cycle east of the Great Plains and 10-year cycle west of the
    Great Plains (except for interior Alaska where a longer cycle is
    acceptable). Some States in the East plan to augment Federal
    appropriations by contributing their own funds and people to the
    program, which will lower the cycle to 5 years in participating States.
        Question. Are there particular factors peculiar to individual parts
    of the country that favor a longer or shorter cycle? Please identify
    these factors and discuss their application to the various regions of
    the country.
        Answer. Yes. Several factors provide opportunities to consider
    varying plot remeasurement periods and in turn cost of operations.
    Areas with low rates of growth or vegetative change and areas with
    extremely poor access offer possibilities for longer intervals between
    measurements while rapid growth rates and easy access would suggest
    shorter periods. Examples of such areas might include the juniper lands
    of the interior west and interior Alaska for longer remeasurement
    periods or lower sampling intensity and the South with its faster
    growth rates would be a candidate for shorter remeasurement periods.
        Question. Which states currently share the costs of the inventory
    program?
        Answer. States currently cost sharing for FIA/FHM inventory work in
    fiscal year 1999 are Maine, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
    Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Indiana,
    and Wisconsin. Total financial support from these States in fiscal year
    1999 is about $3.8 million.
        Question. In what Regions is inventory work being on National
    Forest lands being paid for from the National Forest System
    appropriation? What is the total amount being paid in these Regions?
        Answer. Although the level of commitment and amounts of funding
    differ among Regions, all Regions made some commitment to national FIA/
    FHM grid inventory in fiscal year 1999. Each Region determines the
    priority for this inventory work separately. Regions 8, 9, and 10 have
    had long-standing agreements to fund data collection on national
    forests by Station inventory crews. The annual cost of these agreements
    is $1,127,000 in fiscal year 1999. A new agreement with Regions 1, 2,
    3, and 4 is in the final stages of negotiation and has already been
    approved by three Regional Foresters. This master agreement will
    replace a number of separate agreements with individual national
    forests and Regions and strengthen the consistency of data collection
    procedures and comparability of results across Regions. The annual cost
    of this master agreement is $1,854,000. Regions 5 and 6 currently
    collect their own data, causing some difficulties with consistency and
    comparability of data. The estimated cost of having Station crews
    collect the data in Regions 5 and 6 would be $1,290,000. These figures
    just represent the cost of collecting FIA program data. It would cost
    an additional $2 million to collect forest health monitoring (FHM)
    program information on all national forests.
        Question. Why isn't there a standard national policy governing
    payment for inventory work done on national Forest System lands? Is a
    standard policy being considered by the agency?
        Answer. NFS does not consider this work to be a national priority
    and allows funding and priority to be determined at the Regional level.
    Each year the FIA/FHM grid inventory work on NFS lands must compete
    against all other NFS priorities for funding. While the work is
    considered important in those Regions who have signed annual agreements
    with Stations, at this time there is no standard agency policy for
    funding this work on NFS land. Stakeholder concerns about the lack of
    consistency and comparability of data from national forests led the
    Second Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Forest Inventory to recommend that a
    standard policy be created. Forest Service Research & Development
    endorses that recommendation because it takes considerable Station
    effort to negotiate individual agreements and to repair inconsistencies
    in the data that could be otherwise devoted to reducing the inventory
    cycle.
        Question. If all inventory work being done on National Forest
    system lands were paid for by the National Forest system appropriation,
    what would the total expense to the NFS appropriation be?
        Answer. Total cost for covering NFS lands at standard sampling
    intensity would be $6,271,000 annually. This would include both the FIA
    and FHM detection monitoring grid plot data collection.
        Question. What percentage of the Research Budget is devoted to
    activities that directly enhance the productivity of forest lands and
    utilization of wood fiber? Please identify specific work and associated
    costs. How has this percentage changed over the last 10 years?
        Answer. We have readily available detailed records for the last 5
    years under the new Research Budget Attainment Information System
    (RBAIS) that does a better job of tracking research funding.
    Information for previous years is available but was not categorized in
    a way to easily obtain the information that was requested.
        For the fiscal year 1995-2000 President's budget, 34 to 38 percent
    of the total research budget was devoted to productivity of forest
    lands and utilization of wood fiber. While this represents a fairly
    constant percent, the amount of actual funding increased by 20 percent,
    ($66.5 to $80 million.)
        Refer to enclosure 4, on the following page, for a detailed list of
    the research work and funding history.

                                   ENCLOSURE 4.--RESEARCH FUNDING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY OF FOREST LANDS AND UTILIZATION OF WOOD FIBER, FISCAL YEAR 1995-2000
                                                                                         [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                Fiscal year
                                                                  Fiscal year           Fiscal year           Fiscal year           Fiscal year           Fiscal year               2000
                                                                      1995     Percent      1996     Percent      1997     Percent      1998     Percent      1999     Percent  President's  Percent
                                                                                                                                                                                   budget
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vegetation Mgmt. & Protection Res.:
        1.2 Silvicultural Applications..........................      $15,701        8      $13,884        8      $14,850        8      $16,238        9      $14,958        8      $17,317        7
        1.4 Forest & Rangeland Mgmt.............................        8,976        5        9,333        5       13,924        8       13,868        7       13,479        7       16,428        7
        1.6 Forest Operations Engineering.......................        4,404        2        4,009        2        3,833        2        3,457        2        3,415        2        3,762        2
        1.7 Insects/Diseases/Exotic Weeds.......................       19,403       10       18,024       10       19,253       11       19,121       10       19,584       10       24,972       11
    Resource Valuation & Use Res.: 3.5 Forest Prod. Util. &            18,054        9       16,702        9       16,310        9       15,477        8       15,517        8       17,700        8
     Processing.................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal Prod. & Util. Wood Fibers....................       66,538       34       61,952       34       68,170       34       68,161       36       66,953       35       79,879       35
    Other Research..............................................      126,971       66      116,048       65      111,616       62      119,635       64      130,491       66      154,765       66
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total research........................................      193,509  .......      178,000  .......      179,786  .......      187,796  .......      197,444  .......      234,644  .......
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill
    included language that required 5 full-time employees be stationed in
    Sitka to establish a wood utilization Laboratory. Is there funding in
    the fiscal year 2000 budget for this operation? If not, is the Forest
    Service still committed to having this facility fully operational with
    5 FTE's in fiscal year 2000. What is the agency's schedule for
    establishing the lab?
        Answer. There is no funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
    Sitka Laboratory. Because of the delay in the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation, the fiscal year 2000 Department Allowance had already
    been established, and the Forest Service could not add the need to its
    Agency Request. Funds committed to date total $748,000 from the
    Washington Office Research & Development budget. Under the direction of
    the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW), a highly qualified senior
    researcher has been detailed to Sitka for one year as acting team
    leader; a technical and administrative support person is on board; an
    Economist for marketing and economics expertise will report June 1,
    1999; and a personnel recruitment outreach effort is currently in
    progress for the remaining positions, including a permanent team
    leader.
                             legislative proposals
        Question. The Forest Service budget includes $111 million in
    savings from several legislative proposals. However, only sketchy
    details of these proposals are contained in the budget justification.
    When will these proposals be sent to the Congress? Will all of them be
    sent at once? Why is it taking so long for the Administration to send
    these proposals to the Congress?
        Answer. We expect that the Administration's legislative proposals
    described in the fiscal year 2000 budget will be submitted to Congress
    in the very near future. These proposals will most likely be submitted
    in a single package. Because this package will include the budget-
    related proposals from all the executive departments, additional time
    has been required to complete the materials for submission.
        Question. Are there other legislative proposals that the Forest
    Service is working on that are not included within the scope of this
    year's budget that would have the effect of increasing revenue to the
    Forest Service? If so, what are these proposals? What are the agency's
    projections with respect to the amount of revenue that could be
    generated? When will these proposals be finalized?
        Answer. The Forest Service does not have other proposals that we
    intend to submit related to the fiscal year 2000 budget. There may be
    preliminary proposals at various stages of internal review that we
    might submit in future budgets, but it would be premature to describe
    those at this point.
        Question. Another legislative proposal concerning the Forest
    Service involves stabilizing payments to counties which have National
    Forest lands. Last year, the Administration proposed to fix these
    payments by formula and decouple them from timber sales. This proposal
    went nowhere. Will the agency send up the same proposal as last year?
        Answer. We are proposing a broader special payment formula base, 76
    percent of the average three highest years between 1986 and 1995. Under
    the proposal, no state would receive a lower payment than the fiscal
    year 1998 payment, and no state would be able to receive greater than a
    25 percent increase above the fiscal year 1998 payment. Most recently
    Secretary Glickman indicated that he would recommend Administration
    support for an amendment to be offered by Congressman Peter DeFazio of
    Oregon which would provide 100 percent of the average of the three
    highest payments received between 1985 and 1999 adjusted annually for
    inflation assuming acceptable offsets can be identified.
        Question. When will this proposal be sent to Congress?
        Answer. The proposal was submitted to Congress on June 7, 1999.
        Question. How will this proposal be funded?
        Answer. Through offsetting revenues elsewhere in the General Fund
    of the Treasury.
        Question. How much did each county receive in revenue from their 25
    percent share of timber receipts for the years 1986 through 1996?
    Please provide an itemized breakdown for each county.
        Answer. Please refer to enclosure 5, on the following pages.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.023

        Question. Critics argue that decoupling removes any accountability
    from the Forest Service to use active management tools like timber
    harvesting. How does the agency answer this charge?
        Answer. The Forest Service will continue to be held accountable for
    resource management decisions to the Congress, under existing statutes
    and regulations and to the public after enactment of a stabilization
    proposal just as the Forest Service would have been prior to enactment
    of a stabilization proposal. The decoupling affects not only timber
    harvest, but other commodity programs such as minerals, non-recreation
    special uses, and grazing. The Forest Service is accountable to
    Congress and the public for managing all of these activities,
    regardless of what happens to the Agency's decoupling proposal.
        Question. A number of groups have circulated a proposal which
    contains an ``either/or'' provision that would set the payments to
    counties at the larger of either the amount they would receive based on
    the actual harvest or the statutory formula level. Would the agency
    support such a proposal? If not, why not?
        Answer. The Administration does not support such a provision. The
    Administration does not believe that resource management decisions
    should be a factor in local school district decisions about whether
    schools remain open or should be closed. The unpredictable nature of
    such issues as to whether, and which, timber sales are awarded and
    harvested, does not provide a stable foundation for local budgeting
    purposes.
                                 timber program
        Question. By far, the largest decrease in the Forest Service fiscal
    year 2000 budget is in the Timber Sales program. The agency proposes to
    reduce the Timber Sales program by $30 million which will reduce the
    timber harvest level by another 400 million board feet in fiscal year
    2000. Isn't this level far below the allowable sales quantity contained
    in the agency's existing forest plans?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget proposes a $29.3
    million reduction from the final fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    However, the fiscal year 1999 final appropriation includes $19.229
    million in Congressional earmarks that put the fiscal year 1999 final
    appropriation above the requested level. Much of this additional
    funding did not result in additional capability to offer timber sale
    volume in fiscal year 1999. The timber volume expected to be produced
    in fiscal year 2000 is 2.25 billion board feet with the regular timber
    sale program, a reduction of 261 million board feet from the expected
    fiscal year 1999 level. These levels are significantly under the
    approximate 7.3 billion board feet of ASQ identified in the forest
    plans. Congress has not funded full implementation of the forest plans
    for any program and the Administration has not requested this because
    many plans are outdated.
        Question. If the forest plans do not establish the appropriate
    timber harvest level, how does the agency determine what level of
    harvest it will fund?
        Answer. The forest plans establish the allowable sales quantity
    (ASQ) as the average annual chargeable volume that could be planned for
    sale during the first decade of the forest plan. These volume levels
    could be offered if no other constraints are placed on timber sales
    following plan finalization, and if adequate funding is provided. Since
    many of these plans need revision, there are several forests that now
    have additional constraints that further limit their timber sale
    capability below the established ASQ levels. In addition, Congress has
    not funded the Forest Service to accomplish full forest plan
    implementation for any program. Thus, our agency timber sale offer
    levels are calculated based upon considerations of these constraints
    and the actual funding levels provided.
        Question. If the funds were provided, how much additional volume
    could the Forest Service prepare?
        Answer. We have identified the ability to produce an additional 290
    million board feet under the regular program if the funds were
    provided.
        Question. To achieve this level, how much additional funding would
    be required?
        Answer. To achieve an additional 290 million board feet under the
    regular program would require about $19.4 million in timber sales
    management funds, plus $4.7 million for engineering support. The
    average unit costs of $65.99 per MBF for timber sale preparation plus
    $16 per MBF for engineering support are reasonable unit costs to use
    for any additional increase over the volume capability provided in the
    fiscal year 2000 President's Budget.
        Question. Aren't timber sales the most cost effective way of
    addressing the fire hazard and forest health problems caused by overly
    dense tree stands, an especially significant problem in the interior
    West? Can the agency afford to thin these millions of acres relying
    solely on other methods?
        Answer. Timber sales are oftentimes more expensive to plan and
    administer than other types of vegetative treatments--e.g., prescribed
    burning, use of chemical herbicides, and mechanical treatments such as
    cut-and-leave. However, commercial timber sales generate revenues that
    can help to offset, in whole or part, any sales preparation and
    administration costs that the government incurs. As a result, timber
    sales are oftentimes the ``least net cost'' method of achieving
    different vegetative management goals. This fact was clearly shown in
    an August, 1994 agency report entitled ``Evaluating the Use of Timber
    Harvest on 19 National Forests: An Exploratory Study of Below-Cost
    Timber Sale Issues and Changing Management Conditions''. This study
    found that if plan goals such as improving forest health, reducing
    forest fuels, and creating desired wildlife habitat conditions were
    kept constant, eliminating the agency's ability to use commercial
    timber sales as a management tool would, in most instances, increase
    rather than decrease net operating costs.
        Many of the stands in need of treatment to address fuel loading and
    forest health concerns will have to be mechanically thinned before they
    can be prescribed burned. The agency recognizes this fact and is
    responding in several ways. One response is the new ``Forest Ecosystem
    Restoration & Improvement'' line item that has been included in the
    President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 at a level of $15
    million. These funds would be used, in part, to thin timber stands that
    presently have little or no commercial value. Another response is the
    agency's initiative on ``Watershed Restoration and Fire Protection
    Through Small Diameter Utilization''. This is a joint National Forest
    System, State and Private Forestry and Research undertaking that is
    designed to take a comprehensive look at what can be done to improve
    the utilization of small diameter and currently under-utilized
    material. Under the structure of this initiative, and consistent with
    the authorities provided by Congress in Section 347 of the Omnibus
    Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, the agency is
    also presently testing an array of new processes and procedures that
    could enhance its ability to effectively and efficiently manage small
    diameter, low value material. This testing is occurring through a
    series of 28 stewardship contracting demonstration pilots being
    implemented around the country.
                                     icbemp
        Question. Last year, many frustrations were expressed over the
    Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) project.
    Many of the people in the affected region felt that their concerns were
    not listened to by the agencies involved in the project. The
    Administration is now conducting a supplemental EIS on the project. How
    is this process proceeding? What feedback has the agency received from
    local communities within the projects boundaries?
        Answer. The preparation of the supplemental draft EIS is going
    quite well. Project staff and Regional Executives have been meeting
    with State, Resource advisory councils, County, and Tribal officials to
    discuss the progress made in the preparation of the supplement. We do
    not expect significant feedback from local communities until we release
    the supplement for public review and comment in September.
        Question. What is the agency's schedule for completing the
    supplemental EIS and issuing a Final Record of Decision on this
    project?
        Answer. A supplemental draft EIS is scheduled for release in
    January 2000 and the Record of Decision issued in fall of 2000.
        Question. What was the total cost of this project? How much will be
    spent in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Actual agency costs through fiscal year 1998 and projected
    costs for fiscal year 1999 total $46.4 million of which Forest Service
    cost totals $35.4 million. The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget
    includes $5.2 million to develop the Supplemental and Final EIS and
    Record of Decision. The Forest Service portion of the fiscal year 2000
    cost would be $3.5 million.
        Question. How much will it cost to fully implement the Final Record
    of Decision?
        Answer. We will not know the estimated cost for implementing the
    final decision until we know what that decision is. At the time the
    Supplemental Draft EIS is issued we will have the estimated costs for
    each alternative.
                            land management planning
        Question. The Committee of Scientists recently issued its
    recommendations for improvements to the National Forest System Land and
    Resource Management Planning Process. How will these recommendations
    affect the completion and substance of the new forest planning
    regulations?
        Answer. The Forests Service is considering the full text of the
    Committee's Report in the development of the proposed planning
    regulation.
        Question. When will the agency finalize its new forest planning
    regulations? What, if any, impact will the new regulations have on the
    Forest Service budget?
        Answer. Our goal is to have a final regulation by early CY 2000,
    depending on when the proposed rule is out for public comment. We do
    not expect the final regulation to impact the Forest Service budget.
        Question. Will the new regulations make the forest planning process
    more or less expensive?
        Answer. The new regulation would create efficiencies and lead to
    better decisions. Our expectation is that future planning would be less
    expensive. We are continuing to evaluate this, however.
        Question. Does the Forest Service intend to more closely link its
    future forest plans to its budget and to performance measures?
        Answer. The agency is working to ensure that future forest plans
    will be developed using consistent assumptions and procedures for
    incorporating budget information into the development and evaluation of
    alternatives. This will make forest plan information more useful in the
    development of national budgets.
        With regard to performance measures, annual planned levels of
    performance are based on field knowledge of resource needs and
    capabilities. This information comes from regional and local
    assessments and forest or other local plans and will form the basis for
    the annual set of outcomes, products and services addressed in the
    agency's GPRA Strategic Plan goals and objectives.
                                law enforcement
        Question. What portion of the law enforcement budget is devoted to
    cooperative agreements with local governments for the provision of law
    enforcement services?
        Answer. There are two types of cooperative law enforcement
    agreements that the Forest Service utilizes with local governments. The
    first type is the Cooperative Law Enforcement Patrol Agreements. The
    amount anticipated to be expended on these agreements in fiscal year
    1999 is $5,339,000. The second type is Cooperative Law Enforcement Drug
    Enforcement Agreements and the Forest Service expects the cost for
    these agreements to be $832,000 in fiscal year 1999. The expenditures
    for the regular patrol and drug enforcement agreements equates to
    approximately 9.5 percent of the NFLE budget line item.
        Question. Could the Forest Service rely more on local governments
    to furnish law enforcement services and reduce its costs?
        Answer. The Forest Service is currently preparing a response to
    language contained in Senate Report 105-227 dated June 26, 1998. When
    that response is submitted, it should answer this question.
        Question. What, if any, complications or concerns are there with
    relying on local entities to provide such services? To what extent may
    state and local law enforcement personnel enforce federal law?
        Answer. The Forest Service is currently preparing a response to
    language contained in Senate Report 105-227 dated June 26, 1998. When
    that response is submitted, it should answer this question.
        Section 2915(f) of legislation which established the Midewin
    National Tallgrass Prairie (Title XXIX of Public law 104-106) provides
    that receipts collected may be used for administrative activities.
    These activities include law enforcement. The Subcommittee expects the
    Midewin unit to eventually become self-sufficient with receipts earned.
    Part of this self sufficiency is to provide public safety services
    through internal Forest Service law enforcement staffing.
        Question. Are any internal law enforcement activities funded
    through Midewin receipts? If so, at what level? If not, why not?
        Answer. No internal law enforcement activities are currently funded
    through rental or user receipts. Rental receipts are primarily used for
    prairie improvements and are declining. Sufficient user receipts have
    not been collected to date. However, in future years as user receipts
    increase, law enforcement activities can be funded.
        Question. The Subcommittee understands that law enforcement costs
    have increased substantially as a result of additional entitlements
    including special law enforcement pay and retirement costs. In order to
    maintain a base level of services without reducing cooperative law
    enforcement programs, what level of additional funding is required to
    offset these increased costs?
        Answer. The additional entitlements that the Subcommittee makes
    reference to are Law Enforcement Availability Pay for the criminal
    investigators and Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime for the law
    enforcement officers. To maintain a base level of services without
    reducing cooperative law enforcement programs, additional funding in
    the amount of $5,390,000 would be required. This level is based on
    fiscal year 1999 costs and does not include expected cost of living
    increases for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Certain law enforcement activities, including unplanned
    events and emergencies, apparently can not be planned for or
    anticipated, yet cause budgetary impacts to the program. What are these
    unplanned or emergency events? What has been the budgetary impact of
    these events in the past three years? What would be the
    Administration's position on language which authorizes use of any funds
    available to the Forest Service for law enforcement activities in the
    event of unplanned events or emergencies?
        Answer. Unplanned events and emergencies include the search for
    Eric Rudolph, the recent search and rescue efforts associated with the
    death of one of our own officers, assistance provided during the FBI
    search for the three women abducted near Yosemite National Park,
    natural disaster occurrences where Forest Service law enforcement
    personnel have assisted the United States Marshal Service, timber sale
    protests, the bison issue in Western Montana, the Sturgis motorcycle
    rally, large group gatherings, arson task forces, 2002 Olympic
    preparation, and directed projects such as protection of public lands
    from the impacts of immigration along the Southwest Border.
        The documented costs for these events and emergencies for fiscal
    year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and through March of fiscal year 1999 have
    total $4,756,000. It is estimated that another $1,000,000 has been
    spent, but not specifically designated in the accounting system.
                                    general
        The Subcommittee has been informed that the Malheur National Forest
    had a positive net growth rate of approximately 300 million board feet
    per year in 1993 and that now in 1998 the forest reports they are
    experiencing negative net growth as a result of fires, insect and
    disease events which have occurred during the Administration's tenure
    as the stewards of the Malheur National Forest. And that a large
    salvage sale designed to salvage timber from a large burn on that
    forest was canceled because part of that salvage sale is in RARE 11
    Roadless area which has twice been released for management in the
    Malheur National Forest land management plans.
        Question. Is this correct? If so, doesn't this suggest modification
    of the agency's current roadless policy is necessary?
        Answer. The Malheur National Forest is unaware of any report or
    inventory done in 1993 that states a positive net growth of
    approximately 300 million board feet for that year, nor has the Forest
    published a report on net growth for 1998.
        The information for growth rate for the current Malheur National
    Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is based on a 1980 inventory.
    This inventory showed an annual growth rate of 130,124 MBF for trees
    over 9'' dbh to a 6.0'' top diameter and an estimated 5 year mortality
    of 215,055 MBF. A current vegetation survey completed in 1994 showed an
    annual growth rate of 163,330 MBF and an estimated 5 year mortality of
    717,275 MBF for trees over 9'' dbh to a 6.0'' top diameter. Further
    inventory data was collected in 1998, however this information has not
    yet been analyzed.
        The area burned by the Summit Fire in 1996 includes two former RARE
    II areas that are allocated by the 1990 Malheur National Forest Land
    and Resource Management Plan to uses that allow non-scheduled timber
    harvest under certain conditions (Wildlife Emphasis and Scenic Area).
    While these lands are not normally available for timber management, the
    Record of Decision for the Final Supplemental to the Environmental
    Impact Statement for the Summit Fire Recovery Project calls for harvest
    of 50 MMBF from the total fire area. This harvest includes 23 MMBF from
    former RARE II areas (6 MMBF from Jumpoff Joe and 17 MMBF from
    Greenhorn Mountain) and has not been cancelled.
        Question. The Forest Service fiscal year 2000 budget justification
    references a possible proposal to put the timber trust funds on budget.
    What percent of your agency's spending authority is provided by the
    following trust funds: Brush Disposal, the timber salvage sale trust
    fund, and the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification does indicate
    that we would work with Congress in fiscal year 1999 to determine
    whether or not making these three trust funds a part of the annual
    appropriation process would improve disclosure, accountability, and
    incentives for natural resource management. The Brush Disposal fund is
    0.6 percent, Salvage Sale Fund is 3.7 percent, and Knutson-Vandenberg
    is 4.1 percent of the total Forest Service budget. Although these
    percentages seem quite small when compared to the total dollar figure
    for the agency, when the salvage sale fund is compared to the operating
    budget for timber sales it represents 40 percent and when it is
    compared to total National Forest System budget it is 10 percent.
    Similarly, for the K-V fund it represents 61 percent of the
    reforestation and timber stand improvement operating budget and 10
    percent of the National Forest System budget.
        Question. What are the advantages of putting these funds on budget?
    Given the current fiscal constraints, wouldn't putting these funds on
    budget raise the likelihood that less money would be provided for the
    work currently funded out of these trust funds?
        Answer. Placing these funds under the normal appropriations process
    accomplishes improving disclosure for the use of the funds and greater
    accountability as well as eliminating any perception that they are an
    incentive for a higher harvest level.
        If these three trust funds were placed ``on budget'' and we did not
    receive in-kind replacement funds through the appropriations process,
    there would be less work accomplished. Some items that may not be
    accomplished include reforestation and the treatment of insect and
    disease problems.
        Question. If less money were provided to perform work currently
    funded by the trust funds, what would the impact be to the timber
    program, reforestation, and other environmental restoration activities?
        Answer. For the salvage sale fund, unless sufficient funds are
    appropriated to replace our current salvage fund account, the sale of
    salvage material in emergency situations in some cases could be
    affected because funding might not be available to expedite timber sale
    preparation and harvest administration. In addition, we manage this
    fund with some flexibility to reallocate funding to a particular
    geographic area in response to an unplanned, catastrophic event without
    impacting other Regions. However, once appropriated funds are allocated
    to the Regions and ultimately to the forests, it becomes much more
    difficult to reallocate funds to meet emergency situations without
    severe impacts to those units relinquishing the funding.
        The regular timber sale program may also be reduced if the K-V fund
    is not replaced by appropriations for needed reforestation following
    regeneration harvests. NFMA requires the Agency to make a determination
    prior to a regeneration harvest that the lands can be adequately
    restocked within 5 years of final harvest. Thus, if an area will not
    regenerate naturally following harvest, it must be seeded or planted,
    and K-V funds are customarily collected to accomplish this work.
    Without appropriations to replace the K-V collections already made, and
    needed in the future, all necessary regeneration work could not get
    done. Once this occurs, the agency would begin modifying its
    silvicultural prescriptions in favor of lower volume intermediate
    thinnings rather than higher volume regenerations harvests that would
    be unsound if regeneration could not be assured. Currently about one-
    half of all K-V funding goes for reforestation projects.
        Not replacing the K-V funds with appropriations would also impact
    our ability to carry out other renewable resource management activities
    such as timber stand improvement (TSI), wildlife habitat improvement,
    soil and watershed improvement, and recreation and range improvements.
    Currently about 25 percent of all K-V funding is used for timber stand
    improvement activities and another 25 percent is used for wildlife,
    fish, soil, watershed, recreation and range improvements.
        Not replacing funds for brush disposal work following timber
    harvest would place this requirement on timber sale purchasers to treat
    the activity fuels associated with their timber sales. For purchasers
    to do this themselves would result in less revenue being received for
    the timber sold because the purchasers would have to reflect this
    additional requirement in their bids.
        Question. The Chief recently told the audience at the North
    American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference in San Francisco that
    he planned to re-initiate the national-wilderness field advisory group.
    Where in the Forest Service budget is this group authorized and what
    funds will be used to pay for the operating expenses of this group?
        Answer. The wilderness field advisory group will consist of Forest
    Service employees involved in wilderness management. The purpose of
    this group will be to advise upper level management regarding
    wilderness issues. The funding for this is included in the agency's
    wilderness management program budget as this function is directly
    related to enhancement of the Forest Service wilderness management
    program.
        Question. Recently, the Forest Service announced that it had
    unilaterally extended the deadline for completion of the EIS on the
    Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Plan (SNEP). Last year's Interior
    Appropriations bill required that this be completed by July 31, 1999.
    Why is this deadline being extended? Why weren't the relevant
    Congressional committees consulted?
        Answer. Our intent has been the same as the Committee's since the
    initial agreement: to complete the Sierra Nevada Framework
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as quickly as possible. It became
    increasingly evident that due to the complexity of the analysis,
    evaluation of public comments and consultation with the Fish and
    Wildlife Service that we would be unable to make the July 31 date. It
    was our intent to consult with members of Congress prior to the public
    notification of a new target date to complete the EIS. To that end we
    consulted with the local representative for Congressman Doolittle, who
    has served as the key contact for California, about the need for the
    additional time to complete the EIS in a thorough and professional
    manner. We believed this would provide the needed notification. We
    regret the misunderstanding and have taken steps to insure this will
    not happen in the future. This includes sharing weekly briefing papers
    and increasing the number of briefings with Congress.
        Question. What, if any, impacts will the decision to extend the
    time frame for preparation of the SNEP have on the Quincy Library pilot
    program? Will the Quincy Library pilot program be affected in any other
    ways by the SNEP?
        Answer. The timeframe extension for completion of the EIS portion
    of the Sierra Nevada Framework Project did not delay preparation of the
    DEIS for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) pilot
    program. The Record of Decision and the FEIS were signed on August 20.
    Project specific planning and implementation are ongoing since release
    of the Record of Decision. Concerning the SNEP Framework D EIS effort
    and the HFQLG project, the current intent is to treat the HFQLG area
    separately for the duration of the HFQLG pilot project. However, it is
    possible that some of the issues addressed in the Sierra Nevada
    Framework DEIS, including wildlife habitat management and riparian
    guidelines, may require some changes to the HFQLG pilot project.
        The committee has received information that facilities on the North
    Kaibab Ranger District in Fredonia, Arizona are inadequate.
        Question. Does the agency currently have plans to replace those
    facilities?
        Answer. The Kaibab National Forest Facilities Master Plan, approved
    in 1993, identifies the need for new office, shop, and storage
    facilities to replace the obsolete existing facilities. They range in
    age from 20 to 35 years old. Replacement of these facilities will
    likely be the next major project submitted by the forest for capital
    investment funding but that opportunity is several years off.
        Question. How many full time employees are located at the station?
    How many temporary employees are located there during the summer?
        Answer. At present there are 37 full time employees and 6 temporary
    employees at the station. There are 40-50 temporary employees located
    at other field stations on the District.
        Question. What is the total space requirement? What is the total
    vehicle parking and warehouse storage space requirements? What is the
    total area space requirements for grounds, parking, storage, and
    facilities?
        Answer. Our space needs are as follows:
            Office--10,700 square feet
            Shop and Storage--10,200 square feet
            Vehicle Parking--45 visitor and employee spaces, 50 government
            vehicles including heavy equipment
            Area Space Required 10--acres
        Question. What is the estimated cost if new facilities were
    constructed by the agency?
        Answer. $2,750,000 assuming utilities are available at the lot
    line, $3,000,000 if they are within \1/4\ mile. Both estimates include
    design and contract administration costs but not overhead.
        Question. If the city of Fredonia were to construct adequate
    facilities, would the Ranger District be prepared to lease those
    offices and support facilities?
        Answer. No. Due to budget constraints it is not feasible for the
    Ranger District to vacate government-owned facilities and move into
    leased facilities. At current fair market leasing rates we estimate the
    annual lease payments would be approximately \1/3\ of the Ranger
    District's annual budget for all of the facilities described earlier.
        Question. How could the agency participate with Fredonia in
    determining design criteria?
        Answer. We would commit the services of Forest Service architects
    and engineers to work with the city to determine the design criteria.
        Question. Could the agency contract directly with the city or would
    the agency have to advertise for competitive bids?
        Answer. The agency would have to advertise for competitive bids.
    Federal regulations prohibit the agency from entering into a sole
    source, non-competitive procurement with the city unless it can be
    justified this is in the best interest of the government.
        Question. Salmon recovery is a major issue in the Pacific
    Northwest. What cooperative efforts and through what specific programs
    is the agency assisting other federal, state, and local agencies in
    this recovery program?
        Answer. The USDA Forest Service has been and is involved in a
    number of on-going cooperative and collaborative efforts in the Pacific
    Northwest for the restoration of Pacific salmon habitat and
    populations. We are partnership the states, tribes, and other Federal
    agencies involved with the Northwest Power Planning Council to develop
    the multi-species framework plan for the Columbia River Basin. We are
    part of the Federal Caucus where all Federal agencies are pooling their
    resources to address anadromous fish issues. We are participating in
    the development of the 4H's paper to address Hydropower, Hatcheries,
    Habitat, and Harvest lead by the National Marine Fisheries Service. We
    are part of the Interagency Implementation Team (IIT) made up of
    representatives of the USFWS, FS, BLM and NMFS to implement the
    Biological Opinions on the Northwest Plan. At a local level individual
    Forests are providing expertise to local watershed restoration groups.
        Question. How much funding has been spent relative to salmon
    recovery in the last three years? What are the projected expenditures
    for this program over the next three years?
        Answer. In Oregon, California and Washington, $30.1 million has
    been allocated to anadromous fisheries over the past three years. In
    Alaska $15.1 million has been expended over the same time period. It is
    anticipate that $33 million will be expended over the next three year
    in Oregon, California and Washington and $17 million in Alaska.
    Additional funds such as watershed and soils also benefit anadromous
    fish.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
        In fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $170 million for the
    State and Private Forestry Program.
        But after reviewing both your actual expenditures in fiscal year
    1998 and your projected costs in fiscal year 1999, it appears that a
    lot of the money is being eaten up in federal salaries to administer
    the grants and federal overhead expenses.
        According to the USDA National Finance Center accounting records
    for 1998:
      --You had 642 employees running the program.
      --Their salary and benefit costs exceeded $35 million.
      --Agency staff spent another $5 million flying around to different
            states to look at state and private projects.
      --Another $7 million was spent for federal rent and other indirect
            costs.
      --A total of $42 million was spent in overhead at the federal level--
            or about a quarter of the available funds. And once grants were
            made to states and others, they also have overhead expenses.
        Only $104 million of the $170 million budget was provided to states
    and private foresters through grants and the Stewardship Incentives
    Program.
        Question. Wouldn't it make more sense to block grant this program
    to the states and let them decide how to use the money? It would save
    well over $40 million in federal overhead expenses. It would get the
    resources to the states faster because they wouldn't have to waste time
    filling out paperwork to apply for funds. It would let them, as opposed
    to Washington bureaucrats, set their own priorities. And, most
    importantly, it would maximize the resources that are allocated on the
    ground to improve forestry practices.
        Answer. At the present time, State and Private Forestry authorities
    do not enable issuance of block grants to States. Block grants would
    provide the States with unlimited discretion as to how they expend and
    account for funds, regardless of the purpose for which the funds are
    appropriated by Congress and granted to the States. While recognizing
    the need to address different priorities in different regions and
    States, one dimension of the Federal role is to assure that program
    priorities of national importance, which address a range of needs and
    customers and are advanced in a coordinated effort.
        Administration budget proposals and Congressional appropriations
    underscore this role, and the determining the appropriate mix of
    different programs and expanded budget line items. The shift toward
    performance based budgeting reinforces the need to associate budget
    allocations with planned program outcomes. Financial management
    responsibility requires agency accountability for appropriate
    expenditure of federal funds.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                     surplus land disposal/inholder relief
        A very large portion of the President's proposed budget includes
    funding for a ``Lands Legacy Initiative,'' which predominantly
    considers land acquisition throughout the Natural Resources agencies. I
    worked diligently with the Administration last year for legislation on
    federal acquisition and management of a unique piece of property in New
    Mexico, and I appreciate the value of public ownership of special
    property. Over 30 percent of New Mexico is in federal ownership.
    However, I have always advocated federal maintenance of the property
    the government already owns, and providing relief to those who have
    waited years for federal purchase of their property.
        Question. What percentage of the funding for land acquisition in
    your proposed budget would go towards the purchase of existing
    inholding from willing sellers?
        Answer. The Forest Service will use approximately 90 percent of the
    funds for the purchase of inholdings within the National Forest System
    boundaries. The approximate 10 percent for lands that would not go
    towards inholdings would go towards lands outside of but adjacent to an
    existing National Forest boundary as directed under Section 7 of the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. All purchases will be
    negotiated and consummated only with willing sellers.
        Question. Do you have an inventory of inholdings available and
    awaiting purchase by the Department?
        Answer. There is no inventory of all inholdings. There is
    information available on projects proposed in the President's budget
    for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For example, in fiscal year
    2000 for Pacific Northwest Streams the President proposed $6.0 million.
    Information was provided to both the Senate and House Appropriation
    Committees on acres acquired to date, what acres are proposed for
    acquisition if fiscal year 2000 funding is available, and what are
    future needs. This type of information was provided on all projects
    proposed in the President's budget.
        I also worked very hard with the Administration last year on
    legislation which would facilitate disposal of surplus federal property
    and provide relief for inholders. My legislation would allow the
    proceeds from sales of disposal property by DOI and the Forest Service
    to be used for purchase of inholder properties from willing sellers who
    have been waiting to sell to the federal government. You would be able
    to purchase these properties without coming to Congress each time.
        Question. Do you support this proposed legislation?
        Answer. S. 1184, ``National Forest System Community Purposes Act.''
        The Forest Service strongly opposes S. 1184 for the following
    reasons: (1) adequate statutory authority exists to make lands
    available for recreation and other public purposes; (2) taxpayers will
    not receive fair market value for their assets; and (3) the purposes
    for land conveyance are too broad in scope.
        There are several existing authorities by which National Forest
    lands can be made available for community purposes. Under the Townsite
    Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may convey, for fair market value, up
    to 640 acres of land to established communities located adjacent to
    National Forests in Alaska and in the eleven contiguous western states.
    Within certain limits, the Sisk Act of 1967 authorizes the Secretary of
    Agriculture to exchange lands with states, counties, or municipal
    governments or public school districts for lands or lands and money.
    Moreover, the Secretary of Agriculture can exchange National Forest
    lands with state and local governments under authority of the General
    Exchange Act of 1922. The Secretary of Agriculture also has existing
    authority to accommodate public uses on National Forests through
    permits and leases.
        These authorities have some common themes in the management and
    disposition of Federal lands:
      --Balancing of Interests.--The conveyances of federal land are based
            on considerations made by our managers to assure that the
            benefits of conveyances outweigh the public objectives and
            values of keeping lands in Federal ownership.
      --Assuring compatible uses.--Terms and conditions may be imposed by
            the federal land manager to assure that lands will be used for
            their intended purposes and will not result in undue
            environmental damage.
      --Consideration.--Lands are conveyed for fair market value, assuring
            the public full reimbursement for its assets.
        S. 1184 changes these existing authorities by allowing the disposal
    of National Forest lands for less than fair market value. Congress
    established the public policy generally mandating the receipt of fair
    market value for the conveyance or use of the Federal lands, most
    clearly stated in the Independent Offices Appropriations Act and the
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It is sound fiscal management
    to get value received in return for value granted. Further, the general
    public should benefit from the use and disposition of the public's
    land. The Administration objects to legislation that would reverse that
    policy by opening the door to less than fair market value consideration
    for the disposition of National Forest lands.
        In addition, we are concerned about the breadth of purposes for
    which S. 1184 authorizes conveyance of National Forest lands. The scope
    of application will allow wholesale disposal of highly valuable
    National Forest lands for nominal fees.
                           rural community assistance
        A very large portion of the President's proposed budget includes
    funding for a 11 Lands Legacy Initiative,'' which predominantly
    considers land acquisition throughout the Natural Resource agencies.
    Out of President's $1 Billion Lands Legacy Initiative for fiscal year
    2000, $268 million represents USDA's portion.
        Over 30 percent of New Mexico is in federal ownership. We have many
    small communities completely surrounded by forest lands, who are
    dependant on their resources for survival. In recent years, communities
    such as Taos have been assisted by small grants from the Forest
    Service's rural community assistance programs. Unfortunately,
    communities like this are now being told there is no longer funding for
    these kind of programs. I do find it interesting that the Forest
    Service's proposed budget focuses its State and Private Forestry
    Program towards presidential priorities such as land acquisition, while
    programs state foresters and local communities benefit from on the
    ground are shrinking.
        Question. Please provide for me a breakdown of what portion of the
    fiscal year 2000 budget will be going to support community programs,
    compared to what is requested for land acquisition.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Forest Service budget includes $40.04
    million for Urban and Community Forestry programs, $16.305 million for
    Economic Action Programs, and $7.0 million for Pacific Northwest Rural
    Community Assistance programs, for a total of $63.345 million that
    supports community capacity building, growth, and development.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget also includes $50.012 million for the
    Forest Legacy program, to protect private forest land from conversion
    to non-forest uses. The land remains privately owned when conservation
    easements--the program's primary tool--are used. The Forest Service
    delegates the administration of federally owned easements to the
    States, and when the easement is acquired in the name of the State, it
    becomes their responsibility.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget also includes $118 million in the Land
    Acquisition budget.
        Question. Of the amount requested for land acquisition in the
    Forest Service Budget, what portion is expected to go to purchase
    existing inholdings?
        Answer. Approximately 90 percent of the funds requested for land
    acquisition will go toward the purchase of existing inholdings within
    National Forest System boundaries. All of the dollar amount requested
    is within the authorizations of the Forest Service as all lands to be
    purchased are either in or adjacent to Forest Service management
    boundaries.
                  four corners sustainable forestry initiative
        I supported a grassroots effort last year to establish sustainable
    community-based forest enterprises. The Four Corners Sustainable
    Forestry Initiative, consisting of State foresters, community and
    tribal leaders, and non-profit organizations, received $500,000 in
    fiscal year 1999 to begin a five year effort to encourage forest
    restoration and risk reduction in cooperation with the Forest Service.
    This is exactly the type of community program that benefits forest
    dependant rural communities that I mentioned earlier.
        Question. Please provide me an update on this initiative?
        Answer. The Four Corners Sustainable Forestry Initiative has
    established a steering committee with representatives from each of the
    four states as well as tribal representatives. The committee also
    includes representatives of federal, state and local governments, non-
    profit associations, and private businesses. The steering committee has
    initiated three primary activities to achieve its goal of encouraging
    forest restoration, maintenance, and risk reduction through
    sustainable, community-based forest enterprises, as follows:
        Assessment.--A contractor team has been selected to undertake an
    assessment of the current status of Four Corners region forest
    resources, wood products industry, current and potential markets for
    small diameter timber, and socioeconomic conditions and demographics
    relating to the development of a forest restoration infrastructure. The
    assessment will gather and synthesize currently available information
    on the above topics in a manner which will help Initiative partners
    communicate forest restoration needs to the public. This information
    will also be used in the development of a long term strategy to achieve
    forest restoration and economic development goals. A report is to be
    completed by August 1999, for presentation at the Taos Roundtable.
        Demonstration projects.--A request for proposals has been released
    for projects that demonstrate innovative techniques and approaches to
    community-based forest restoration. Demonstration projects can be
    undertaken by individuals, government entities, non-profit
    organizations, and businesses. Projects will be selected based on their
    ability to meet the goals of the Initiative in a measurable way. More
    than 20 proposals are expected to be received, with requests for
    funding greatly surpassing the $275,000 in funding available for this
    year's funding cycle.
        Sustainable Forestry Roundtable.--The steering committee has begun
    planning a Roundtable conference for August 25-27 in Taos, New Mexico.
    The goal of the conference is to bring together a wide variety of
    stakeholders to review the results of the assessment, develop a long-
    term strategy for forest restoration and rural economic development in
    the region, create partnerships for the development of new forest
    restoration enterprises, and educate people about the latest in
    sustainable forestry technologies.
        The Initiative is also building a broader network of resource
    providers to assist in the development of a forest restoration
    infrastructure in the Four Corners region.
        Question. Since these kind of projects have such potential benefit
    for so many communities at so little cost, why has funding requests in
    Forest Service Economic Action programs dropped?
        Answer. The Economic Action Program funding level in fiscal year
    2000 is proposed at $16.305 million. This is $1 million less than the
    fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $17.305 million. However, the fiscal
    year 1999 enacted level included $6.745 million of Congressional
    earmarks which were outside the Economic Action Program components.
    Thus, the effective level of funding for Economic Action Program
    delivery in fiscal year 1999 was $10.56 million. The proposed fiscal
    year 2000 budget proposal for Economic Action Programs represents a 54
    percent increase over that amount.
                    carson national forest drainage problem
        The Town of Taos contacted me last year regarding flooding problems
    resulting from storm drainage in the Paseo Del Canon drainage channel.
    The majority of the drainage area which contributes to the flow in this
    channel comes from land owned by the Forest Service in the Carson
    National Forest. Taos applied to the Forest Service for a grant under
    the Rural Community Assistance Program. The Forest Service responded
    that while the Town's proposed solution to the problem was an excellent
    proposal, the Forest Service did not have adequate funding to address
    the problem. $1 million was provided in fiscal year 1999 to allowing
    for lining of this channel, covering the costs of the Forest Service's
    share of liability.
        Question. Please provide a status report on this project.
        Answer. The Town of Taos is in the process of developing NEPA
    requirements, Army Corp of Engineers permits, if needed, and other
    necessary preparatory work. As soon as this work is completed, the
    grant for the one million dollars will be issued.
                        southwest conservation strategy
        In December 1997, Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of
    Agriculture Dan Glickman, and Environmental Security Undersecretary of
    Defense Sherri Goodman unveiled a ``strategy'' for natural resource
    management and endangered species issues in Arizona and New Mexico.
        The Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
    Albuquerque, New Mexico is apparently ``co-chairing'' this multi-agency
    effort with the Regional Forester of the Forest Service, Eleanor
    Townes.
        In the President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget, once again,
    multiple agencies are funding this Southwest strategy. I have had many
    constituent inquiries as to the status and accomplishments of this
    strategy. I asked you to provide details of funding for this strategy
    in the February 25, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing.
    (Note: We do have these answers, since NFS provided the answers to
    questions 213 through 216 as part of Senate Energy hearing questions.)
        Question. Specifically how much of the Forest Service's Budget
    request is planned to go towards this strategy in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. No special funds are designated for the Southwest Strategy.
    Costs associated with this effort are coming from existing allocations.
        Question. Have any recovery issues have been identified for
    immediate attention?
        Answer. The focus for immediate actions regarding implementation of
    the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been to improve interagency
    coordination. One of the best products of the Southwest Strategy to
    date is Section 7 (ESA) consultation streamlining. As a result of
    improved communication and increased coordination through the Southwest
    Strategy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service
    completed the biological assessment needed for programmatic
    consultations regarding on-going management of hundreds of grazing
    allotments in record time. As a result, permittees were provided with
    information more quickly regarding the need for changes, if any, in on-
    going livestock grazing management on the allotments.
        Due in large part to the Southwest Strategy, the States of New
    Mexico and Texas, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
    Land Management developed an agreement to conserve the Pecos pupfish.
    The fish was proposed for federal listing under the Endangered Species
    Act. New Mexico Lieutenant Governor Bradley recently credited his
    interaction with the Southwest Strategy as a rationale for signing the
    agreement.
        Another example of a collaborative response to species recovery is
    the involvement of participating agencies in a programmatic approach to
    ESA Section 7 consultation for fire-related management activities.
    These activities are helping to restore ecosystems in Arizona and New
    Mexico, and contributing to the recovery of the Mexican spotted owl and
    certain other species listed under the ESA.
        The Southwest Strategy is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, Luke Air Force Base and other Department of Defense training
    activities on the Barry M. Goldwater Range and Cabeza Prieta National
    Wildlife Refuge to accomplish recovery activities for endangered
    species. The Barry M. Goldwater Executive Committee and the Southwest
    Strategy Regional Executive Committee are working in cooperation on
    this and other issues.
        Question. Has the strategy ``team'' made any decisions regarding
    actions to be taken, and, if so, have they collaborated with state and
    local agencies?
        Answer. The Regional Executive Committee of the Southwest Strategy
    has agreed to support existing collaborative efforts in Arizona and New
    Mexico and to facilitate the development of new efforts. Increased
    collaboration with tribes, states, and local agencies has occurred and
    is continuing. The groups have been asked how they want to increase
    collaboration with federal agencies and what issues they would like to
    discuss. For example, New Mexico Lieutenant Governor Bradley and the
    Regional Executive Committee agreed to meet on a regular basis. The
    Committee's desire is to identify and regularly meet with cabinet level
    state officials who have a shared interest in natural resource issues.
    Through these types of efforts, the Southwest Strategy seeks to do a
    better job of ensuring that state, tribal, and local interests are
    incorporated in planning for work that the involved federal agencies
    already are mandated to conduct and for which they have appropriations,
    and that opportunities to share information, expertise, and assistance
    can be expanded.
        Question. Have stake holders been alerted or involved in
    development of this strategy?
        Answer. Yes. Numerous formal and informal contacts and
    presentations have been made with local level existing collaborative
    efforts, as well as state and local government agencies and tribal
    governments. Some of the organizations include the Eastern Arizona
    Association of Counties, New Mexico Association of Counties, Arizona
    Board of County Supervisors, and the Arizona Round Table. Meetings with
    tribal executives have occurred in each state. Southwest Strategy
    Regional Executives attended a Catron County Citizens Council field
    tour. The Southwest Strategy also sponsored training in the
    collaborative process in Safford, Arizona. Additional training sessions
    are planned for Cloudcroft, and Espanola, New Mexico. The South Central
    Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council, covering
    Lincoln and Otero Counties, is co-hosting the Cloudcroft workshop with
    the Lincoln National Forest.
                     u.s. forest service--litigation costs
        There has been a question on my mind for quite some time as I look
    at the work of the public lands agencies of the Department of Interior
    and the U.S. Forest Service that have a significant presence in the
    West. That question is:
        Question. How much money has been spent in New Mexico and Arizona--
    Region 3--and since Senator Bennett is also present, I would add in
    Utah--on environmental lawsuits?
        Answer. Responding to lawsuits requires the effort of many
    employees in addition to those who specialize in litigation. For
    example, line officers, project managers, resource specialists,
    scientists, and clerical support are often involved at various times
    depending on the demands of a particular case. The Forest Service does
    not keep records of costs for each lawsuit so we are answering this
    question by estimating the salary for staff time required to respond to
    cases. Estimates were made for all cases involving challenges under
    environmental laws (e.g., NFMA, NEPA, ESA). Using fiscal year 1998 as
    the base, Forest Service costs in New Mexico and Arizona (Region 3) are
    estimated at $1,900,000. fiscal year 1998 costs in the State of Utah
    are estimated at $230,000.
        Question. In these lawsuits, how much has been awarded to the
    plaintiffs?
        Answer. Fees were only paid on one lawsuit during fiscal year 1998.
    This was a case in Region 3 where $16,905 was paid under the Equal
    Access to Justice Act.
        I raise this issue because it's beginning to seem as if the federal
    government is paying more on legal fees, court costs, and settlements
    of lawsuits than on managing the actual natural resources over which
    they have custodianship for the American people. The American people
    are also the taxpayers paying these legal bills.
        A second issue I'll mention comes to mind because of the possible
    listing of the silvery minnow as an endangered species. In this case,
    the litigation has been brought by environmental groups against the
    federal government, but the people who are likely to be most adversely
    affected in this litigation, which could include the City of
    Albuquerque, for example, are never given any consideration in the
    lawsuit. I don't think that makes much sense, and this issue should be
    given some attention by Congress.
        I note, Mr. Chairman, that Interior Secretary Babbitt will be
    before the Subcommittee next week. I think these are appropriate
    questions to be asked of the Department of Interior agencies as well.
                   u.s. forest service--southwestern drought
        The Forest Service is behind in its forest management activities
    nationwide, such as prescribed burns, that could help mitigate fire
    danger in our natural forests. In the Southwest, we are looking down
    the barrel of what could be one of the worst drought years ever. I know
    that you, Chief Dombeck, have been trying to reach me by phone, and
    we've missed each other, but I need to be advised on what you are doing
    regarding drought and fire danger in the Southwest.
        Question. Please tell me what specific measures are being taken to
    mitigate fire danger in New Mexico this fire season.
        Answer. To date, using our Severity authorization, the Forest
    Service has sent $4 million to our southwest Region. This money is used
    to offset extreme fire danger conditions that occur from time to time
    across the country. The southwest Region is using the severity
    authorization to hire their fire prevention and initial attack
    firefighting resources earlier than normal. The Forest Service, States
    of Arizona and New Mexico, Bureau of Land Management, and the National
    Park Service are coordinating their fire prevention activities, public
    service announcements, and deployment of firefighting resources. Fire
    lookouts are in place and initial attack resources are deployed
    throughout the Region.
        Question. Please explain what assistance you will need from
    Congress, especially in appropriations, to address fire danger and
    other drought-related disasters this year.
        Answer. The President's Budget and the available contingency funds
    should be adequate to cover the increased fire disaster needs.
        Question. Please promptly provide a review of what you are doing
    for fire assessment in conjunction with other agencies--particularly
    the NRCS and FEMA.
        Answer. The Forest Service is working with the States of Arizona
    and New Mexico, as well as with other Federal agencies, to coordinate
    fire prevention efforts, public service announcements, firefighting
    resource deployment, and fire detection programs. The States of Arizona
    and New Mexico are working with FEMA to obtain grants to preposition
    firefighting resources. Interagency Coordination Centers are monitoring
    fire danger conditions and planning deployment of resources based on
    these conditions. The Forest Service has provided Seasonal Severity
    financing so that fire prevention personnel, fire detection lookouts,
    firefighters, and equipment can be hired earlier than normal. This has
    been done in cooperation and coordination with the States of Arizona
    and New Mexico, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park
    Service.
        I raise this issue because we need to know now what can be done in
    advance of any drought-related disasters this summer.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
                                    general
        I am getting the impression that the Forest Service is closing off
    a lot of public lands in Montana through various administrative actions
    such as the: road closure moratorium; hard rock mining moratorium on
    the North Slope; and proposed Off-Highway Vehicle (OHVs) ban on certain
    public lands.
        Question. Since the Forest Service was established to manage these
    public lands for multi-use, what specific actions are you taking to
    foster multi-use of these public lands?
        Answer. The President's budget provides a balance of initiatives
    supporting broad nationwide goals as well as emphasis on protecting and
    restoring the health of National Forest forests and rangelands. We
    believe the funding emphasis contained in the President's budget is
    important for America and, as the table of selected performance
    indicators below shows, will continue to provide balance.

              USDA FOREST SERVICE--SELECTED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal years--
                                      --------------------------------------
                                           1998         1999         2000
                                        estimated    estimated    estimated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimated Estimated Estimated           26,459       22,633       22,600
     Recreation Special Use Permits
     (number)........................
    Recreation Visitor Days (million)          344          347          347
    Timber Volume Sold (million cubic        569.6        701.0        614.4
     feet)...........................
    Grazing allotments (number)......        4,113        4,389        4,000
    Watershed Improvements (acres)...       38,497       20,000       30,165
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I understand that the Forest Service is again proposing to de-
    couple timber receipts from payments to counties. This concerns me
    since this proposed action appears to violate the principle of helping
    local communities.
        Question. What policies has the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    considered to stabilize annual Federal payments to the counties with
    public lands? What specific policies and/or programs have you
    considered to maintain the economic viability of these counties?
        Answer. The Administration has proposed legislation which would
    establish a permanent fixed formula payment which would provide local
    governments more money and greater predictability than current reliance
    on revenue from unpredictable timber sales.
        In addition, Secretary Glickman has recently indicated he would
    strongly recommend the President support an amendment by Rep. DeFazio
    to pending de-coupling legislation sponsored by Rep's. Deal and Boyd
    which would provide a payment equal to the average of the three highest
    payments received by the states between 1985 and the present. This
    would include an annual adjustment to reflect changes in the consumer
    price index. This payment would result in a nationwide payment of $443
    million in fiscal year 2000, $201 million more than the states would
    receive under current law.
        While the Forest Service and other Federal agencies such as the
    Rural Development Administration in USDA and the Economic Development
    Administration in the Department of Commerce have programs that provide
    loan or grant assistance to economically disadvantaged communities,
    these are not intended to take the place of private sector development
    spurred by a healthy economy.
                                new burn policy
        Question. Given that Secretary Babbitt has announced an aggressive
    new policy to increase the number of acres burned throughout the West,
    what is the Forest Service's response to this DOI policy?
        Answer. USDA, Forest Service and DOI are all signatories of the
    1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Our policies are
    essentially the same. The Forest Service has increased the number of
    acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels. Since 1994 we have increased
    our hazardous fuels treatment from approximately 380,000 acres annually
    to 1.48 million treated in 1998. Our treatments include a balance of
    prescribed fire and mechanical treatments.
        Question. What is your assessment of the fire condition of the
    National Forests this year going into the summer burn season?
        Answer. Generally, a normal season throughout the country, except
    for the southern part of the country that is affected by La Nina.
    Potential exists for an above normal fire season in the southwest,
    Texas, and Florida.
        Question. What does this mean for Montana in the number of acres
    burned and communities affected?
        Answer. Based on early indicators Montana could have a near normal
    fire season.
        Question. Are you saying that if communities can't get enough
    timber to harvest, maybe they can get enough timber to burn? Somehow
    this seems backward to how best to manage the lands. Why not increase
    the number of selective timber cuts to reduce the underbrush?
        Answer. The Forest Service does not plan to award communities
    contracts to burn forestland. Burning is intended to reduce fuels that
    pose the risk of catastrophic wildfire. In many cases, prescribed
    burning would not be feasible unless it is preceeded by mechanical
    removal of both commercial and non-commercial trees. This work would
    not necessarily reduce the amount of brush, which could not be sold
    anyway. Thus, prescribed burning to remove brush may still be necessary
    to complete the task of fuels reduction.
                          forest stewardship contracts
        Question. I understand that certain activities that would have
    normally be conducted, are being folded under the new Forest
    Stewardship contracts authorized in last year's appropriations act. In
    doing this, you avoid sharing 25 percent of any receipts received by
    these activities with the counties. I am very concerned about this
    situation since it further reduces the traditional support by the
    Forest Service.
        Answer. There has been no deliberate attempt to shift work to the
    stewardship pilots in order to avoid the need to make 25 percent
    payments to states and counties. Congress enacted Section 347 of the
    Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, which
    authorized the Forest Service to enter into no more than 28 stewardship
    end-results contracts. The purpose of these ``pilot-test'' contracts is
    to evaluate an array of new processes and procedures intended to give
    national forest managers greater administrative flexibility to
    implemented needed ecosystem restoration and maintenance treatments
    while simultaneously meeting the needs of local and rural communities.
    Under the legislative language, any receipts received from these
    contracts are to be ignored for purposes of determining the 25 percent
    payments due states and counties. This provision was included in the
    legislation to provide a better basis for evaluating the potential
    usefulness of the ``goods for services'' concept. For the most part,
    the stewardship pilots are being carried out in situations where,
    because of the limited commercial value of the timber to be harvested,
    a standard timber sale cannot be used. Given these situations, if 25
    percent of receipts were returned to states and counties, little or no
    residual would be available for performing desired ecosystem
    restoration and maintenance work. The agency feels that in most
    instances the economic benefits that will flow from the projects that
    are conducted--e.g., the employment and income that is generated--will
    probably be more important to states and counties than the 25 percent
    payments. This issue highlights the need to address 25 percent payments
    from these kinds of projects before deciding whether or not to make
    ``goods for services'' a permanent practice.
                           road and mineral closures
        Question. I am concerned that more roads in the National Forests
    are being closed to the public. Also many existing roads are
    deteriorating and causing problems with erosion into streams. What are
    your policies to repair existing roads on the National Forests as
    opposed to closing them? What are your plans to repair existing roads
    in Montana and how many miles of existing roads will be closed by your
    fiscal year 2000 Budget request?
        Answer. If a road is needed for management of the National Forest,
    the road is retained on the road system. The fiscal year 2000 road
    maintenance budget of $123 million covers only about 22 percent of the
    identified annual repair and maintenance needs of $568 million. The
    maintenance funding we do receive is directed toward high priority
    safety and environmental protection work.
        Some existing roads, if needed for long term National Forest
    management, are put into a storage category by closing to protect the
    road from use and reduce maintenance costs. Other existing roads that
    are not needed for National Forest management are programmed for
    decommissioning as funds become available.
        In fiscal year 2000, Montana will reconstruct approximately 410
    miles of its existing transportation system. This is 1.4 percent of the
    road miles. In addition to the reconstruction activities that are
    ongoing, forests within Montana are also analyzing the transportation
    system and identifying those components that should be decommissioned
    or closed. In fiscal year 2000, we are projecting that 218 miles of
    classified roads and an additional 65 miles of unclassified roads
    within Montana will be decommissioned or closed.
        Question. The mineral withdrawal of 430,000 acres of National
    Forest land in Montana has raised a lot of attention. Why wasn't this
    action pursued through the normal forest planning process? Will this
    mineral withdrawal affect exiting mining operations on these lands and
    if so, how?
        Answer. The Forest Plan was completed in 1986, before any claims
    had been staked in this area. However, this proposal must be consistent
    with the Forest Plan or the Plan must be amended. The lands have not
    actually been withdrawn. They have been segregated, or temporarily
    closed to establishing new mining claims for a two-year period. During
    that time a study will be done to determine whether to withdraw the
    lands. The proposal will be subject to public review and, if the
    decision is made to withdraw the lands, Congress will be notified and
    will have 90 days to review the decision.
        The current two-year segregation, and the possible withdrawal of
    these lands, are both subject to valid existing rights. As such, the
    only affect on existing or proposed operations will be a relatively
    short delay to determine whether the operator has valid existing
    rights, the most important element of which is that there must be
    evidence as of the date the segregation order was published in the
    Federal Register that a valuable mineral deposit had been discovered.
                       smoke jumpers ceremony in montana
        I am very interested in this summers upcoming memorial of the
    anniversary of the 16 smoke jumpers killed in Mann Gulch Fire in the
    Helena National Forest. I have been contacted by many citizens in
    Montana asking about what is the Forest Service's plans participation
    in this memorial event.
        Question. Since Montana is the home of the Forest Service smoker
    jumpers, I'm sure you are going to be involved, right? What are the
    Forest Service plans to participate in this summers memorial event?
        Answer. The Forest Service is planning the ceremony. The Helena
    National Forest has the lead.
        Question. I think it would be great if you made a good presence at
    this event. I understand the Forest Service is reluctant to do a
    ceremonial jump? Is that true and is there any help that I could give
    you to support this event?
        Answer. We are planning to do a ceremonial jump. But we cannot
    commit more than 1 or 2 jumpers because that is the height of the fire
    season.
                         forest service reorganization
        I have received a number of letters this year about a proposed
    reorganization of your human resources office. Now I support less
    government, however, I am concerned about the impact your plans may
    have on not only local citizens employed by the Forest Service but also
    the services the Forest Service provides to local Federal employees.
    Whether you realize it or not, your office in some communities are the
    only real Federal office that provides information and support services
    to these retired people. I am concerned about this reorganization and
    will provide you a letter soon outlining my concerns.
        Question. However, what are the current status of this
    reorganization? I expect you to advise me of your final plans before
    your release them formally. Is that acceptable?
        Answer. The agency is developing a model to deliver Human Resource
    (HR) services which keeps HR specialists at field locations providing
    personalized service to local management, employees, and the public.
    Local line officers will determine the number and location of these
    ``local HR advisors.'' Specifically the proposal:
        1. keeps local HR advisors at local sites to provide support to
    local managers, employees and the public,
        2. simplifies and lessens the workload of these local HR advisors
    by providing experts in service centers to deal with complex or rarely
    performed activities,
        3. provides employees with expert advice offsite in selected areas
    such as retirement counseling and self service options like changing
    tax exemptions, and
        4. performs processing work which does not need to be performed
    locally at operation centers.
        We believe this model has the best of all worlds. It improves the
    quality of our services, keeps HR advisors at local sites, minimizes
    need to move employees to other jobs, and is efficient.
        An advisory group is recommending to Forest Service management that
    we ``test'' this model in our Denver and Atlanta regions. After a one-
    to three-year test, the Forest Service will make a final determination
    regarding expanding this model Service-wide. Prior to implementing this
    model on a Service-wide basis, we will consult with you.
                       new legislation for more revenues
        I am very interested in your proposed legislative changes to
    provide more revenue for the Forest Service. However, we haven't
    received any language yet.
        Question. Are you going to provide us with any proposed language?
    If so when could we expect it?
        Answer. The Administration's legislative proposals described in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget were submitted to Congress on May 19, 1999 and
    July 9, 1999.
        Question. Also since these legislative proposals are designed to
    provide $111 million in offsetting receipts, what are your plans to cut
    your own budget if these legislation proposals doesn't get enacted this
    year?
        Answer. The Forest Service submitted it program proposals to the
    Department in accordance with normal schedules. The timing of agency
    involvement in the legislative proposals which contribute to the
    estimated savings of $111 million varied with the specific proposals.
    As the Subcommittee is aware proposals concerning special forest
    products and concession reform have been in the development stage for
    more than a year. Other proposals contributing to the $111 estimated
    savings have been in development for a shorter period of time. The
    Forest Service provided specialized expertise to the development of
    these proposals and the development of estimates of revenue or other
    savings. This dialog has been ongoing as part of the routine budget
    development process.
        Question. I understand your legislative proposal would decouple the
    sharing of Forest Service natural resource (e.g. timber, mining,
    grazing) receipts with the states. If this is so, wouldn't this create
    more disincentives for people to utilize the vast wealth of natural
    resources found on Forest Service lands?
        Answer. The Administration's stabilization proposal would not
    create any disincentives to make decisions relating to resource
    utilization. There are many other factors that affect resource
    utilization decisions that are unrelated to payments to states.
        Question. Is this another attempt to lock up the public lands in
    the west from any further development such as that being proposed with
    the mining moratorium on the Rocky Mountain Front?
        Answer. The decision to initiate a payments to states stabilization
    proposal was not influenced by, or connected to, decisions relating to
    the mining moratorium. The Agency has long considered delinking
    revenues from forest resources.
        Question. Also why do you propose to share less Forest Service
    receipts with the states when, on the other hand, you propose in your
    budget to increase Forest Service receipts?
        Answer. Overall projected Forest Service receipts are expected to
    decline by approximately $57 million in fiscal year 2000. Under the
    Administration payments to states stabilization proposal, and per the
    President's Budget Justification, states would receive approximately
    $27 more in fiscal year 2000 than they would receive under current law.
    The formula allows states to select the high three years over a ten-
    year span. Therefore, the states could select the years that generated
    the highest revenues as their basis for annual receipts.
        Question. How would you pay for the annual payment to states if you
    do not tie them to Forest Service natural resource receipts?
        Answer. The payment would be made from offsetting receipts out of
    the General Fund of the Treasury.
        Question. If you use annually appropriated funds, won't that limit
    future funding for the U.S. Forest Service to stay within budget caps
    while making annual payments to the states?
        Answer. The proposal would not rely on annually appropriated funds
    but would be a permanent payment set by statute.
        How can I be assured that you will not decrease the annual payments
    to the states if annual budget caps are reduced?
        Neither the Forest Service nor OMB would have discretion over the
    amount of the payment once it is enacted into law by Congress. The
    payment would continue at the set amount without further action by the
    Administration or the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    The only way that the payment could be reduced or changed in any way
    would be if, in the future, Congress chose to amend or repeal the
    statute.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
                         wood education resource center
        Public Law 105-277, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
    Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999, provided for the
    transfer to the Forest Service of the Hardwood Technology Center in
    Mercer County, West Virginia. This transfer was effected on November
    20, 1998 and the name of the center has been changed to the Wood
    Education Resource Center. Since the official transfer, the Forest
    Service has begun a process of restructuring and reorganizing the
    center to promote the sustainable use of eastern hardwood resources
    through the development of an institute of hardwood technology
    transfer. I am pleased that the Forest Service is moving ahead quickly
    to carry out the directions of the Congress for this facility and would
    like more information as to its progress in achieving the goals of the
    transfer.
        Please describe the structure and organization of the new center:
        Foreword.--The following questions and answers speak specifically
    to the Institute of Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research
    and the Wood Education and Resource Center. The following definitions
    are important to the understanding of both the questions and associated
    answers:
      --The Wood Education and Resource Center. This is the new name of the
            former Hardwood Technology Center located in Gardner, West
            Virginia (across the street from the Forestry Sciences
            Laboratory). It is referred to in the question and answers as
            the Center. The Center is the property of the USDA Forest
            Service, United States Government.
      --State and Private Forestry Liaison. The existing position of the
            Northeastern Area, located at Princeton, West Virginia,
            designed to integrate the cooperative programs, especially the
            Economic Action Programs, into applied research, technology
            transfer, and education.
      --The Forestry Sciences Laboratory. The existing organizational unit
            at Princeton, West Virginia consisting of three major Research
            Work Units with a regional and national focus on hardwood
            utilization and economic information.
      --The Institute Concept. The original concept whereby the USDA Forest
            Service (both State and Private Forestry and Research and
            Development) and the original Hardwood Technology Center would
            coordinate planning, work activities and collaborate on shared
            outcomes. This concept was discussed in a paper prepared by the
            Director of the Northeastern Area and presented to Congress in
            May 1996.
      --The Institute. This is the name of the newly formed Institute of
            Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research. The
            Institute consists of the Wood Education and Resource Center,
            appropriate State and Private Forestry (S&PF) functions,
            including the current S&PF liaison position, and the Forestry
            Sciences Laboratory of the Northeastern Research Station. The
            Institute will work much the way that was described in the
            original concept. A new organization will not be configured, as
            we traditionally do. The Directors of the Northeastern Area and
            Northeastern Research Station will provide overall guidance and
            leadership. The overall point of contact for the Institute to
            the headquarters of the Forest Service is the Director,
            Northeastern Area.
        Question. What are the major functions of the center and how do
    these functions fit into the overall goals of the Forest Service?
        Answer. The focus of the Center, under an overall vision of
    improved hardwood stewardship, will be to advance technologies and
    ideas; promote effective applications; build partnerships; promote
    community sustainability; and disseminate timely, accurate, relevant
    information. The operating principles of the Center will include
    leading edge technical assistance and high quality customer service;
    collaboration; and community development. The short-term strategy for
    the Center will focus on training seminars; conferences; and developing
    grants for applied research. Examples of this applied research will
    include light on the land harvesting technology that reduce
    environmental impacts; improved primary processing; improved secondary
    processing; and, improved market-oriented information. The long-term
    strategy calls for the Center to be operated by a private group under
    the close guidance and counsel of the Directors, within the framework
    of the Institute.
        Initially the Center was designed to assist small, independent
    operators to get established in the secondary hardwoods processing
    industry through training in leading-edge technology in hardwood
    manufacturing as well as product demonstration produced with world-
    class technology and equipment. Some of these original objectives will
    be retained, but now within a much broader and expanded framework.
        A major goal of the USDA Forest Service is sustainability through
    adequate forest stewardship, including the wise use of wood fiber to
    extend the resource. The vision of the Center and the Institute focus
    on the wise, expanded use of America's hardwood forest. The Institute
    and Center are unique and clearly augment the agency's mission of
    caring for the land and serving people.
        Question. What are the major assets of the center?
        Answer. The existing Center consists of a 23,000 square foot
    facility for training, equipment time-sharing, and office space and a
    38,000 square foot dimension mill for additional equipment time-sharing
    and selected manufacturing (component parts; finger jointing; and
    veneer splicing). The Center contains a variety of leading-edge wood
    processing equipment and a core staff of five employees. The Center was
    transferred to the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, on November
    20, 1998 and is now the property of the United States Government.
        Question. Who is providing the leadership for the new center? Who
    is the point of contact for the new center to the headquarters of the
    Forest Service?
        Answer. Currently, the leadership of the Center is under the State
    and Private Forestry liaison, Mr. Al Steele, located at Princeton, West
    Virginia. Mr. Steele is an employee of the Northeastern Area, State and
    Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service. Mr. Steele's telephone number is
    (304) 487-1501. The point of contact for the Center to the headquarters
    of the Forest Service is Mr. Michael T. Rains, Director, Northeastern
    Area, State and Private Forestry. Mr. Rains can be reached at (610)
    975-4103.
        Eventually, a contractor under the overall guidance of the State
    and Private Forestry liaison position will help operate the Center. The
    search for a contractor is now underway.
        Question. What are the appropriation sources and levels for the
    center in fiscal year 1999 and proposed for fiscal year 2000 in the
    President's budget? Are there any other sources of funds? If so, what
    are they?
        Answer. The appropriation source for the Center is the Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee. Funds are provided to the
    USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, through the Economic
    Action Programs budget line item. fiscal year 1999 funding for the
    Center was $2,500,000.
        The fiscal year 2000 President's proposed budget will continue
    funding for the Center at $2,500,000, within the Economic Action
    Programs of State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service.
        In the future, some funding could come from earnings generated by
    the Center. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Bill provided adequate
    authority to retain any funds earned to help augment the operations of
    the Center and/or offset future Federal appropriations. Since fiscal
    year 1999 is the initial year of the restructured Center, it is
    estimated that there will be little or no outside earnings to report.
        Question. What are the major assets of the new institute?
        Answer. In addition to the Center, the Institute includes program
    components and associated resources of the Forestry Sciences Laboratory
    at Princeton, West Virginia as well as the appropriate State and
    Private Forestry functions. Accordingly, any resources and existing
    partnerships associated with these two mission areas, including the
    laboratory facilities at Princeton, are assets available to the
    Institute.
        Question. Who is providing the leadership for the new institute?
    Who is the point of contact for the new institute to the headquarters
    of the Forest Service?
        Answer. A new Institute organization will not be configured, as we
    traditionally know. The Directors of the Northeastern Area and
    Northeastern Research Station will provide overall guidance and
    leadership while maintaining the separate Research and Development and
    State and Private Forestry mission areas. Day-to-day on-site work will
    be under the guidance of the State and Private Forestry liaison
    position (Mr. Al Steele) and the Project Leader at the Forestry
    Sciences Laboratory, Dr. John Baumgras, both located at Princeton, West
    Virginia.
        As with the Center, the point of contact for the Institute to the
    headquarters of the Forest Service is Mr. Michael T. Rains, Director,
    Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry.
        The Mission of the Institute is to promote sustainable use of the
    eastern hardwood resource.
        The Scope of work is development and transfer of information and
    technology to benefit forest-based communities and industry.
        The Vision is efficient and environmentally responsible use of
    eastern hardwood forests.
        The Goal of the Institute is to create a focal point for training
    and collaborative problem solving to advance:
      --Sustainable economic development using eastern hardwood resources.
      --Mitigation of environmental impacts from hardwood harvesting,
            processing, and disposal.
      --Improved competitiveness of hardwood products industry.
        Formal focus groups will help refine and further shape these
    objectives.
        Question. What are the appropriation sources and funding levels for
    the institute in fiscal year 1999 and the proposed for fiscal year 2000
    in the President's budget? Are there any expectations for other funding
    for fiscal year 2000? If so, what are they?
        Answer. The appropriation source for the Institute is the Interior
    and Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee and any outside
    earnings that may be generated through the Center. Appropriated funds
    are provided to the USDA Forest Service for both the Research and
    Development and State and Private Forestry mission areas. Within State
    and Private Forestry, the Economic Action Programs budget line item is
    the traditional funding program source. In fiscal year 1999 the funding
    level for the Institute was $3,600,000. This included the Conference
    Report Earmark of $2,500,000 within State and Private Forestry Economic
    Action Programs line item, an additional $200,000 from the same line
    item for the S&PF liaison position, and $900,000 for the Forestry
    Sciences Laboratory's related work.
        The fiscal year 2000 President's proposed budget for the Institute
    is $3,600,000. This includes $1,525,000 for the operation of the
    Center, $200,000 for the State and Private Forestry liaison position
    and $975,000 for technology transfer from the Economic Action Programs
    (the forest products conservation and recycling program component), and
    a continued component of $900,000 for the Forestry Sciences Laboratory
    from the Research and Development appropriation. Net earnings from the
    Center are estimated to total about $200,000 in fiscal year 2000 and
    could be used to offset appropriations required in subsequent years.
        Question. What non-Forest Service partners are included in or being
    sought for inclusion in the institute? Are any West Virginia State
    agencies participating? Are any academic institutions, such as near-by
    Concord College, connected to the institute? What industry groups are
    interested in becoming more closely involved in the institute?
        Answer. Partnerships with other wood-based training and technical
    assistance organizations are currently being developed. These include
    the West Virginia Wood Technology Center at Elkins, West Virginia, West
    Virginia University, West Virginia Development Office in Charleston,
    and the West Virginia Division of Forestry.
        State and Private Forestry has met with the West Virginia's
    Governor's Office to help ensure full and effective collaboration with
    all potential interests. The West Virginia Forestry Association is
    participating with the Institute in a needs survey of West Virginia
    wood using industries.
        Other actions have been taken to make more effective use of the
    facilities. Recent commitments have been made with the West Virginia
    Army National Guard to use the Center for Distance Learning and to
    further assist Concord College in the same venture. Distance Learning
    is the use of the latest Internet and videoconference technology to
    more efficiently link long distance customers.
        Current work with focus groups will continue to identify additional
    opportunities to extend the contributions of the Institute. We expect
    to develop potential partnerships with other local colleges and
    Universities in the surrounding region.
        The goal is to make the Institute national in scope. All actions of
    the Institute and the Center will continue to target national
    associations and groups as working partners to advance a cohesive
    hardwood stewardship mission.
        Question. What are the processes by which industry and academia can
    help make the dream of the institute a reality?
        Answer. The formal focus groups will be an important mechanism. In
    addition, industry, academia, other state, Federal, and local
    government entities, and private groups will be encouraged to work
    directly with the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area and
    Northeastern Research Station, to ensure adequate input into the vision
    of the Institute. Mr. Steele and Dr. Baumgras will ensure the process
    is adequate, and well communicated.
        Question. What progress has been made to developing and hosting
    focus groups as part of the road mapping and strategic planning
    exercise?
        Answer. Specific contractors have been identified and contracts for
    services have been signed. The next step will be the design of the
    focus groups by the contractors. Focus groups are expected to convene
    in June through mid-July of this year.
        Question. When do you believe that sufficient input and analyses
    from the focus groups will complete such that you can share the
    results?
        Answer. We will begin to document and share results of the focus
    groups almost immediately after their completion. However, while focus
    groups will ultimately play a key role in defining many high priority
    actions and costs, indications are there will be significant
    participation and input from outside the focus groups as we shape the
    final vision and mission of the Institute. It is expected that most of
    the input and analyses will be completed by October through December
    1999.
        Question. What do you project the budget needs of the center and
    the institute will be in the future years beyond fiscal year 2000?
        The estimated fiscal year 2000 budget for a operational Institute
    is as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Proposed    Additional
               Mission area               budget       needs        Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S&PF Liaison.....................     $200,000  ...........     $200,000
    WERC.............................    1,525,000     $975,000    2,500,000
    Forestry Sciences Laboratory.....      900,000  ...........      900,000
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total, Institute...........    2,625,000      975,000    3,600,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Estimated fiscal year 2000 revenue from the Center will be about
    $200,000. Revenues could be used to offset future years'
    appropriations. This is an update of the table dated November 23, 1998.
        If the net revenue projections are correct, the funds could be
    applied to help augment the Center, typically capital reinvestment, or
    to help offset Federal funding needs.
        It is estimated that the fiscal year 2001 net revenues will range
    from about $400,000 to a maximum of $500,000. If these projections are
    accurate and offsets to Federal funding are applied, a total of
    $3,100,000 would be required in fiscal year 2001 and the immediate
    future to fully operate the Institute--$900,000 for the Forestry
    Sciences Laboratory; $200,000 for the State and Private Forestry
    liaison; and $2,000,000 for a fully operational Center. The fiscal year
    2001 budget requirement may need refinement as the goals and objectives
    of the Institute are better defined as a result of analysis of inputs
    from the focus groups.
                          seneca rocks visitor center
        The Seneca Rocks area of the Monongahela National Forest hosts more
    than 250,000 people annually and is one of the busiest Forest Service
    visitor center sites in the eastern region. It is located within a 4-
    hour drive of one-third of the nation's population. I understand that
    great progress has been made on the new visitor center at Seneca Rocks,
    which is scheduled to officially open this summer complete with
    exhibits. I am concerned, however, that the Forest Service will not
    provide sufficient recreation management resources for operating this
    wonderful new center.
        Question. Please provide a 6-year (fiscal year 1995--fiscal year
    1999 enacted and fiscal year 2000 proposed) budget table showing the
    funds made available in the recreation management budget line item for
    the national forest system, the eastern region (region 9), the
    Monongahela National Forest, and the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center.
        Answer.

                                                  RECREATION MANAGEMENT
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal years--
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1995      1996      1997      1998      1999      2000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FS..................................................   159,426   164,256   164,314   170,318   144,953   144,953
    Region 9............................................    17,412    18,044    15,594    16,402    14,212    14,125
    Monongahela.........................................     1,695     1,558     1,349     1,108     1,058       974
    Seneca Rocks........................................        85        85        87        90       132       227
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fiscal year 2000 figures for the FS and R9 are based on the
    numbers that appear in the fiscal year 2000 Budget Justifications for
    the Committee on Appropriations. The Monongahela's number represents
    their average percent of the Region's recreation funds.
        The operation costs for the Visitor Center for fiscal year 1995-
    1998 are for a small temporary center. This center has been staffed by
    a Center director and 3 to 5 Senior Conservation Service Enrollees
    (SCSEP). The Forest is presently transitioning to the new center which
    is a much larger facility. In addition to higher utility costs the
    fiscal year 2000 proposed budget includes funds for two additional
    permanent staff which are needed to provide high quality visitor
    services.
        Question. Is the new visitor center still on track to open
    (complete with exhibits) this summer?
        Answer. Yes, it is still on track. The latest estimate from USDA
    Design Services is for exhibits to be delivered to the site in June
    with installation in late June through early July. The grand opening of
    the facility is tentatively scheduled for mid to late July.
        Question. What private sector partners are involved in the exhibits
    and operations of the new visitor center?
        Answer. At this time the Forest has secured the following partners:
      --Pendleton County Historical Society has placed a display in the
            exhibition hall.
      --Seneca Trails Art Guild is exhibiting tradition art and craft
            materials.
      --A local mountain music group is providing music once a month
            throughout the year.
      --Friends of Seneca, Seneca Rocks Climbing School, and Seneca Rocks
            Mountain Guides are assisting with the funding and installation
            of the climbing wall, will provide some instruction, and are
            involved in the partners' exhibits.
      --Augusta Heritage Center, Davis and Elkins College has provided an
            exhibit and assistance in marketing programs and classes at the
            Center.
      --West Virginia Trout Unlimited is scheduled to teach classes this
            year.
      --West Virginia Office of Tourism is providing funds to pay for two
            visitor service staff .
      --Potomac Highlands (an organization supporting tourism based
            businesses) will provide and maintain a brochure rack.
      --Snowshoe Mountain Resort is working with the National Forest
            Foundation and Forest to furnish one area in the Center.
      --West Virginia University is assisting in providing seasonal student
            interns at the Center.
        Question. What has been the level of local involvement in plans for
    operating the new visitor center?
        Answer. The Forest has provided tours for the center (both during
    the building construction phase and before it opened to the public) and
    has kept the local public informed of the plans for the center. The
    local public has provided numerous suggestions which are being
    evaluated at this time. Many local artisans are scheduled to
    demonstrate their craft this summer. Also local artisans are exhibiting
    examples of Appalachian art and craft products in the Center.
        Question. What is the status of plans to create an institute at the
    Seneca Rocks Visitor Center?
        Answer. The project to create an institute at the Visitor Center is
    moving forward. The Forest partners have scheduled six classes for the
    1999 season. As the program continues to develop the Forest partners
    hope to add more classes in 2000. Lack of enabling legislation limits
    greater Forest Service participation in the institute.
        Question. What is the status of the partnership established at the
    Seneca Rocks Visitor Center between the Forest Service and the National
    Forest Foundation?
        Answer. The formal partnership between the Forest and the National
    Forest Foundation (NFF) has ended (as of April 30, 1999). However,
    local personnel, who formerly worked for the National Forest
    Foundation, continue to work with the Forest, as volunteers, in the
    development of the interpretive plan and restoration of the Sites
    Homestead through recruitment and use of other interested volunteers.
        Question. NFS What will be the hours of operation for the new
    Seneca Rocks Visitor Center for fiscal year 2000? What will be the
    hours operation for the Cranberry Glades Nature Center for fiscal year
    2000?
        Answer. The hours of operation for the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center
    are 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM seven days a week. In the summer the Center will
    be open until 6:00 PM. If budgets allow, it will remain open on a daily
    basis year-round. If not, it will be open on weekends only (10 AM to 4
    PM) after Thanksgiving and remain open only on the weekends until April
    2000.
        Cranberry Mountain Nature Center hours of operation are as follows:
            January-April--Saturday and Sunday 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
            May/Sept--Friday, Saturday, Sunday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
            Memorial Day-Labor Day--9:00 AM to 5:00 PM seven days a week
            October 1-21st--9:00 AM to 5:00 PM seven days a week
            October 22-31st--Friday, Saturday, Sunday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
            November--Saturday and Sunday 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
            December--Closed
                    monongahela national forest radio system
        The Monongahela National Forest has a totally inadequate radio
    system that places employees and the public at risk in fire and other
    emergency situations. The current low-band system is obsolete,
    unreliable, and requires high maintenance. This is of particular
    concern because decreases in staffing levels have made it necessary to
    send out more and more individual employees without partners. In
    addition, many parts of the Monongahela National Forest are in ``dead
    spots'' where no current radio capabilities exist due to previous
    requirements for low-band instrumentation dictated by the presence of
    the Green Bank Observatory operated by the U.S. Navy.
        Question. Have advancements in the ability of Navy at the Green
    Bank Observatory to filter out undesirable radio waves made it possible
    for the Monongahela National Forest to switch over to a high-band radio
    system?
        Answer. Yes, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)
    personnel informed Forest Service personnel in 1997 of upgrades to
    electronic equipment which will filter out radio waves in the high band
    frequencies which are assigned for use on the Mononghala National
    Forest.
        Question. Would such a high-band radio system improve the coverage
    on the Monongahela National Forest and provide for better employee and
    visitor safety?
        Answer. Yes, the target for the new system would be 90 to 95
    percent coverage. The existing system is in the range of 65-75 percent
    when all base and repeater stations are working properly. In addition,
    the new system will provide radio communications for all air operations
    which is extremely important for fire detection and suppression,
    natural disaster response, and search and rescue.
        Question. What would it cost to design and implement a new high-
    band radio system on the Monongahela National Forest?
        Answer. The cost to design and implement a new high-band radio
    system is estimated to be $500,000. The fiscal year 2000 President's
    Budget does not include funding for this activity.
                     allocation of funds among the regions
        Over the past four years, the funding for the National Forest
    System (NFS) has increased by about four percent. This translates into
    about a one percent increase on average each year, which does not
    provide sufficient funds to cover fixed cost increases such as
    salaries, utilities, and rents. During the same time frame, NFS funding
    for the eastern region (Region 9) has decreased by almost three
    percent, and NFS funding for the Monongahela National Forest has
    decreased by about thirteen percent.
        Question. Please verify that these numbers are correct.
        Answer. The following information is provided for the past four
    year period 1996-1999. In 1996, funding for the National Forest System
    was 1.256 billion dollars. In 1999, funding for the National Forest
    System was 1.298 billion dollars. This represents an increase of
    approximately 3 percent over a four year period.
        In 1996, National Forest System funding to Region 9, was 106.5
    million dollars. In 1999, initial funding from National Forest Systems
    to Region 9, was 102 million dollars. Road Maintenance funds totaling
    7.3 million dollars were transfered from NFS to the Construction
    Appropriation. An additional allocation of 1-million dollars was added
    from Washington Office carryover funds to offset costs associated with
    management of the Midewin Tall Grass Prairie Unit. The final 1999,
    total of 103 million dollars (NFS only) represents a reduction to the
    Eastern Region in NFS funding of approximately -3 percent.
        In 1996, NFS funding to the Monongahela was 7.256 million dollars.
        In 1999, NFS funding to the Monongahela was 7.654 million dollars.
        This represents an increase of approximately 5 percent for the
    four-year period.
        Question. Why has the NFS funding for the eastern region decreased
    more than the rest of the National Forest System?
        Answer. Funding to Regions will vary from year-to-year based on
    changes in the Regions' programs. National Forest funds are allocated
    based on allocation criteria that every Region was involved in
    developing. These are reviewed on an annual basis for most programs,
    and adjustments are made where needed. In 1999, Congress moved Road
    Maintenance Program dollars from the NFS Appropriation to
    Reconstruction/Construction, which caused the Eastern Region's NFS
    Appropriation to drop by 7.3 million dollars. When added back for
    comparison purposes, the Region's 4-year trend (1996-1999) for National
    Forest System funding indicates an increase of approximately 3 percent.
        Question. Why has the NFS funding for the Monongahela National
    Forest decreased more than the NFS funding for rest of the eastern
    region?
        Answer. The information provided by the Eastern Region indicates
    that from 1996-1999, National Forest System funding for the Monongahela
    did not decrease, but actually increased by approximately 5 percent.
    Construction funding for the Monongahela has decreased during that 4-
    year period, but that is primarily due to an earmark for construction
    of the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center, which has been completed.
        Question. What is the general process by which the Forest Service
    allocates its funding to the regions? What modifications does the
    Forest Service anticipate to this process, to the criteria upon which
    the process is based, and to the data applied to the criteria?
        Answer. The Forest Service uses a set of budget allocation criteria
    which considers multiple factors pertinent to agency resource
    management needs. This criteria varies by budget line item. We expect
    modification to the allocation criteria in the future for two reasons:
      --As the agency implements financial accountability reforms, a key
            element of this process is the application of ``primary
            purpose'' expenditures. With primary purpose, only a single
            line of accounting will be charged for an activity. This
            differs from the present process where several line items can
            be charged. As a result we anticipate needing a realignment of
            funds between line items. Correspondingly a change will also be
            needed in the criteria.
      --The Forest Service is pursuing a significant change in budget
            structure. Assuming there is such a change, the criteria will
            need to be modified to reflect the new structure.
        Question. Please describe the degree and extent to which the Forest
    Service is satisfied with its NFS budget allocation process. Does the
    Forest Service use the concept of ``base-level'' budgeting in devising
    its NFS budget request and allocating its NFS funds? If not, why not?
        Answer. The agency is satisfied with the existing budget allocation
    criteria. No ``cookbook'' approach to allocating funds can be totally
    responsive to agency needs and changing priorities. However, the
    agency's criteria does provide for adjustment in allocations consistent
    with the need to recognize national priorities and emerging issues.
    Accordingly the criteria are adequate for the existing budget
    structure.
        Question. Please provide a single table showing the actual amounts
    that each region received from the Forest Service through the
    allocation process for the NFS and reconstruction/construction accounts
    for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 as well as estimates of what
    each region will receive from the Forest Service based on the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2000.
        Answer. Please see enclosure 6, on following page.

                          ENCLOSURE 6.--FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999 FINAL ALLOCATIONS AND FISCAL YEAR 2000 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ALLOCATION
                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Fiscal years--
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1998                             1999                                2000
                          Units                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         National
                                                          forest     Reconstruction/  National  forest   Reconstruction/  National  forest   Reconstruction/
                                                          system      Construction         system         Construction         system         Construction
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Region 1.........................................      115,203            13,892           108,169            29,682           104,080           40,270
    Region 2.........................................      110,353            13,586           104,624            25,566           102,781            33,275
    Region 3.........................................      103,297            12,572            97,000            27,401            97,919            33,298
    Region 4.........................................      128,397            15,407           125,633            31,487           125,393            38,318
    Region 5.........................................      184,233            19,984           170,171            40,527           160,627            51,513
    Region 6.........................................      217,028            31,747           178,702            46,988           166,681            67,043
    Region 8.........................................      139,514            21,392           129,461            33,435           124,182            37,113
    Region 9.........................................      109,778            15,367           103,436            19,597           103,269            27,353
    Region 10........................................       68,791            13,859            76,859            19,488            66,428            19,494
    Washington Office................................      153,645             7,680           178,526             9,630           154,794             8,437
    Forest Products Laboratory.......................        1,624               225             1,507               600             1,394             1,485
    International Institute of Tropical Forestry.....          820               199               782               975               472               965
    Intermountain Research Station...................        3,261               498           ( \1\ )           ( \1\ )           ( \1\ )           ( \1\ )
    North Central Forest Experiment Station..........        1,468               268             1,391             1,108             1,297               257
    Northeastern Area and Station....................          404             3,006             3,741             5,225             2,878               841
    Pacific Northwest Research Station...............        3,702               235             2,414               994             1,121               649
    Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exper. Sta....        2,117               449             1,900             1,599             1,394             1,466
    Rocky Mountain Research Station..................        4,733               375             7,455               405             5,130               680
    Southern Research Station........................        5,393               270             5,093               774             4,143             1,035
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, allocations.........................    1,353,761           171,011         1,296,864           295,481         1,223,983          363,492
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In fiscal year 1999 the Intermountain Research Station was consolidated with the Rocky Mountain Research Station.

        Question. What suggestions do you have for helping ensure that the
    President's budget request and the appropriations act do not contain
    any unanticipated and unexpected reductions at the Forest level?
        Answer. The Forest Service is committed to accomplishing a maximum
    amount of work on the ground and maximizing the amount of available
    funding for this purpose. The agency recently implemented standard
    definitions for indirect expenses, which will enable quality assurance
    reviews of areas where indirect expenses appear to be excessive. These
    guidelines are consistent with the Federal Accounting Standards
    Advisory Board definitions. With effective management of indirect
    expenses, unanticipated and unexpected reductions at the forest level
    can be minimized. In addition to management of indirect expenses,
    careful management of personnel stationed in the Washington Office and
    Regional units is necessary to assure maximum availability of funds for
    field expenditures. Although some additions to headquarters and
    regional office staffing have been necessary to rectify accountability
    issues, the agency remains committed to keeping these increases to a
    minimum.
        Question. What suggestions do you have for helping ensure that all
    the regions and forests of the National Forest System receive a clear,
    sound, and understandable budget request that can be supported by the
    Congress?
        Answer. The agency believes that a ``clear, sound, and
    understandable budget request'' is challenging to submit under the
    present budget structure. The recent study conducted by the National
    Academy for Public Administration concurs that the present structure
    does not reflect the work being accomplished on the ground. There is an
    urgent need to develop a budget structure that reflects the integrated
    nature of the work performed. Currently the agency proposes a budget
    (within the 6 principle appropriations) that includes 21 budget line
    items and 35 expanded budget line items. This structure does not
    recognize the fact that work performed at the ground level delivers
    multiple benefits. The Agency will be working with the Administration
    and Congress to develop a budget structure that reflects the integrated
    work performed.
                         west virginia research centers
        The Forest Service operates three research labs in West Virginia:
    Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown. According to information I have
    been given, these three research labs are supported at last year's
    level in the President's budget request for operations (Princeton,
    $2,234,000; Parsons, $1,747,000; Morgantown, $1,766,000). At the same
    time, I understand that an additional unallocated decrease is contained
    in the President's budget that might reduce the funding for these labs.
        Question. What are the full staffing levels for each of these
    research centers?
        Answer. Following are the full staffing levels for the West
    Virginia Research Centers for fiscal year 2000. The number of full-time
    equivalent employees is being held at the same level as fiscal year
    1998 and fiscal year 1999:
            Morgantown--14 FTEs
            Parsons--21 FTEs
            Princeton--19 FTEs
        Question. Please provide a table showing the actual funding and
    staffing levels for these three research centers over the past ten
    years.
        Answer. Please see enclosure 7.
                                 [enclosure 7]
                         West Virginia Research Centers
        The Forest Service operates three research labs in West Virginia:
    Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown. According to information I have
    been given, these three research labs are supported at last year's
    level in the President's budget request for operations (Princeton,
    $2,234,000; Parsons, $1,747,000; Morgantown, $1,766,000). At the same
    time I understand that an additional unallocated decrease is contained
    in the President's budget that might reduce the funding for these labs.

                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Princeton              Parsons             Morgantown
               Fiscal year appropriation           -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Funding    Staffing   Funding    Staffing   Funding    Staffing
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1990..........................................     $1,960         31     $1,037         24     $2,345         17
    1991..........................................      2,116         34      1,526         24      2,402         18
    1992..........................................      2,238         32      1,590         26      2,524         19
    1993..........................................      2,140         32      1,711         26      2,543         19
    1994..........................................      2,143         34      1,674         28      2,521         17
    1995..........................................      2,091         27      1,791         28      2,098         16
    1996..........................................      1,184         25      1,786         24      1,766         13
    1997..........................................      2,234         23      1,747         24      1,766         14
    1998..........................................      2,234         19      1,747         21      1,766         14
    1999..........................................      2,234         19      1,747         21      1,766         14
    2000 PB.......................................      2,234         19      1,747         21      1,766         14
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please verify that the President's budget request, after
    all reductions and additions are factored in, does support these three
    research facilities at the staffing and funding levels contained in the
    budget enacted for fiscal year 1999.
        Answer. The Forest Service intends to maintain the same level of
    funding to all three facilities in West Virginia as requested in the
    fiscal year 2000 President's Budget, and will maintain staffing levels
    to the extent possible given increases in salaries and fixed costs.
                       highland scenic highway landslides
        Two landslides were discovered in April 1997 on the fill slopes of
    the Highland Scenic Highway in the Monongahela National Forest. In
    early summer 1997, one of the slides encroached onto the aggregate
    shoulder of the road. The Monongahela National Forest, with assistance
    from the Federal Highways Administration, developed a preliminary
    estimate of $1.4 million to repair both slides after site visits in
    August 1997. After review, this estimate was lowered to $935,000 and
    this amount was made available to the Forest in fiscal year 1998 to
    repair the slides. The Forest entered into a memorandum of
    understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers (Huntington District) in
    June 1998 to perform the actual design of the repairs and oversee its
    construction. Upon an in-depth analysis, using some of the fiscal year
    1998 appropriated funds, the Corps determined that the slides were far
    more extensive in size and scope than initially estimated.
        Question. Why was the size and scope of the slides (and
    consequently the greater amount of work required) not determined
    earlier in the process?
        Answer. The two slides were discovered in the second half of fiscal
    year 1997. At that time, funds were not available to perform a detailed
    analysis to determine the cause of the slides and design the repair.
    Forest engineering personnel, with assistance from a Geotechnical
    Engineer from the Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands
    Highway Division, developed the initial cost estimate based on survey
    data and a visual analysis of the slides. The estimates did not have a
    very high confidence level because of the many unknowns related to
    subsurface conditions of the slide areas. When the Army Corps of
    Engineers, under agreement with the Forest, performed an in-depth
    analysis of each slide the proposed designs were larger in scope than
    originally estimated. This additional work was needed to restore
    stability to the fill slopes.
        Question. What is physically required to repair the two landslides
    and stabilize the slope and surface of the Highland Scenic Highway?
        Answer. The recommended repair method for both slides is the same.
    The only difference is in the volume of material to be removed and
    replaced. The requirements are as follows:
      --Construct an access road from the Highland Scenic Highway to the
            toe of the slide. This will be utilized to remove unsuitable
            material and for delivery of rock backfill.
      --Excavate and remove unsuitable material and construct a stable
            foundation for rock backfill.
      --Install perforated pipe underdrains to remove excess water.
      --Place rock backfill, in layers, from foundation elevation to top of
            slope.
      --Place aggregate base course on excavated road and shoulder.
      --Pave and stripe disturbed sections of the Highland Scenic Highway.
        Question. What is the current estimate for the cost to repair the
    landslides that threaten the Highland Scenic Highway? What funds are
    currently on hand to be used to address these costs? How much
    additional funding is needed?
        Answer. The estimated cost for the repair of Slide #1 is
    $1,400,000. The estimated cost for the repair of Slide #2 is
    $1,235,000. The Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, under agreement with the Forest, is providing engineering
    services, the contractor, and administration of the construction
    contract for the repair of Slide #2. The project is being funded by
    $935,000 in fiscal year 1998 CNES funds allocated to the Forest for
    this project, and $300,000 in CNRD funds from the fiscal year 1999
    Forest allocation.
        The Forest does not have any additional fiscal year 1999 funds to
    allocate for the repair of Slide #1. $1,400,000 in additional funding
    is needed to repair Slide #1 on the Highland Scenic Highway.
        Question. Is the Forest Service satisfied with the evaluation by
    the Corps of Engineers and with its role in accomplishing the task of
    repairing the road and stabilizing the slope?
        Answer. The Forest is satisfied with the engineering services
    provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They have a highly
    skilled and experienced staff of specialists. The Corps has been
    working closely with Forest engineering personnel through the design
    phase to develop a cost effective repair for each slide. The repair
    project on Slide #2 has started and the Forest is satisfied with the
    professional management of the project by Corps of Engineers personnel.
            elk river limited partner land acquisition and donation
        The Monongahela National Forest has been approached by the Elk
    River Limited Partnership about a potential sale and donation. As part
    of an agreement between the two groups, Elk River Limited Partnership
    is proposing to sell a 731-acre inholding to the Monongahela National
    Forest Service and to donate substantial mineral (coal, not oil and
    gas) holdings to the Forest Service as part of its liquidation
    proceedings. These holdings include the rights to mine deep coal on
    about 53,000 acres (these rights will revert to U.S. ownership in
    2035), mostly underneath lands of the Monongahela National Forest. The
    731 acres to be purchased by the Forest Service in connection with this
    donation are located in the Cheat Bridge area along the Shavers Fork
    River. The West Virginia Chapter of the Nature Conservancy is helping
    to negotiate and facilitate the sale and donation.
        Question. Are the proposed 731 acres to be acquired in fee simple
    totally within the boundaries of the Monongahela National Forest.
        Answer. Yes. It is bordered on three sides by National Forest
    System lands.
        Question. What is the estimated cost of acquiring the 731 acres in
    fee simple from the Elk River Limited Partnership? What funds are on
    hand for helping to meet this cost? What additional funds are needed?
        Answer. The estimated costs would be $650,000; $275,000 will allow
    completion of the acquisition. The remaining funding to be acquired is
    available from other sources.
        Question. Will the Forest Service incur any additional liabilities
    by acquiring these lands and accepting the mineral holdings as a
    donation?
        Answer. Yes, we will incur additional liabilities associated with
    monitoring the rehab areas. We are willing to accept the liability.
         watershed restoration needs of the monongahela national forest
        The watersheds of the Monongahela National Forest have been
    degraded by past logging practices and wildfires, which have resulted
    in heavy loads of fine sediments clogging its streams. The Monongahela
    National Forest has identified twenty-five watersheds that need to be
    assessed for restoration needs. The State of West Virginia has
    identified four watersheds partly within the Monongahela National
    Forest that need restoration. Restoration of these watersheds is
    important to improving trout populations and attendant recreational
    opportunities. Almost eighty percent of West Virginia's native trout
    streams lie within the Monongahela National Forest.
        Question. NFS Please provide a table showing the amounts
    appropriated and provided to the Monongahela National Forest for
    watershed improvements (assessments and restorations) over the past 4
    years (including for fiscal year 1999).
        Answer. Please see enclosure 8, on the following page.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.024

        Question. How much more funding is estimated to be required to
    complete the assessments and to restore the remaining degraded
    watersheds on the Monongahela National Forest?
        Answer. Comprehensive watershed assessments and specific cost
    estimates are not available at this time, but a 1998 estimate by the
    Monongahela National Forest indicates that at least $17.6 million is
    needed to restore watersheds across the Forest. In addition to actual
    restoration costs, it is further estimated that about $60,000 per year
    over the next five years is needed to properly conduct watershed
    assessments to identify overall needs. In addition, specific project
    design costs are expected to cost $80,000 per year as assessments are
    completed.
        Question. What level of funding is included in the President's
    budget request (including the proposed $10 million increase for
    watershed improvements) for this watershed assessment and restoration
    work on the Monongahela National Forest?
        Answer. Watershed funding for the Monongahela National Forest in
    the President's Budget is projected at $342,000. This includes $163,000
    for Soil, Water and Air Operations (NFSO) and $179,000 in Watershed
    Improvement funds (NFSI).
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. What laws or changes to regulation have allowed the USFS
    to use a budget development and allocation process that doesn't appear
    to consider Forest Plan implementation as the driving need?
        Answer. There is no law or regulation that directs the Forest
    Service to consider or not consider forest plans as a part of the
    budget development and allocation processes. The agency's budget
    development process results in regional submissions of program funding
    mixes and performance information for a range of total funding levels
    established by the Washington Office. These total funding levels
    reflect a reasonable set of increases and decreases around the most
    recent President's Budget. This gives the Washington Office a range of
    production capabilities and associated program costs, all of which
    implement Forest Plans. This information is used to develop the
    specific budget proposals contained in the agency request package that
    is sent to the Department. Upon enactment of an appropriations bill,
    funds are allocated to regions using allocation criteria for each
    program. These criteria reflect workload and complexity factors related
    to each program that were identified and agreed to by field units. They
    are designed to provide an objective starting point for making an
    equitable distribution of funds to regions that will assist in
    implementing the direction established in forest plans. The funds
    allocated to the field are influenced by many factors such as
    congressional earmarks, presidential initiatives, and other new
    initiatives and uncontrollable exigencies that are not reflected in
    forest plans. These items are also taken into consideration when field
    level allocations are made. We believe that the current budget
    development and allocation processes consider many factors, including
    meeting the goals of forest plans.
        Question. There has been a lot of discussion that a new budget
    process is being developed that is somehow linked to Strategic
    Planning. What assurances do we have that this new budget process will
    meet the essential requirement that individual Forest Plans will be a
    consideration during the development and allocation of the budget?
        Answer. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993
    directs each federal agency to develop annual performance plans that
    link direction in its Strategic Plan to the budget through outcome-
    based performance measures. Goals and objectives from the agency's
    Strategic Plan will be incorporated into revisions of Forest Plans.
    Forest Plans will provide resource information that is used in
    developing subsequent revisions to the agency's Strategic Plan. Forest
    Plans will also continue to be used as the tool to determine the
    management direction for a particular administrative unit and be the
    basis for Forest-level budget submissions.
        Question. Most people agree that there are many problems with
    allocation by budget criteria. Why is the Forest Service still
    utilizing an allocation system that doesn't appear to meet the needs of
    the Forests and their customers?
        Answer. The Forest Service has used a criteria based approach for
    allocating funds in the Agency's budget process for several years. This
    criteria-based approach was developed in response to field concerns
    about equity in developing constraints for formulating outyear budgets
    and allocating current-year funds. The criteria establish a visible and
    rational basis for allocating resources by identifying differences
    among regions in their resource conditions, programs of work and other
    elements. Budget criteria also improve internal and external
    communications because they help focus attention on program goals and
    objectives by using key resource conditions and planned or actual
    accomplishments to allocate funds. While we feel that the current
    approach is vastly superior to how allocations were made prior to use
    of criteria, we recognize that the criteria have not pleased everyone.
    It is a formulaic approach and appears too rigid. However, it is
    important to remember that, at the national level, the formula-driven
    results are only the starting point for a completed allocation process.
    Adjustments to the results can and should be made to reflect changing
    conditions, unexpected situations, and agency-wide priorities. The
    criteria were never intended to eliminate or reduce management
    discretion or prerogative to review and adjust the results. The only
    requirement is that adjustments be documented in the Program Budget
    Advice, our allocation document. A similar approach is now being used
    in most regions. With our criteria-based allocation approach, the
    internal and external debates about equity are now focused on specific
    criteria or types of criteria. While we recognize the need to continue
    refining the basis for our allocations, we also feel that no approach
    or set of criteria used to distribute scarce resources will always make
    everyone happy.
        Question. Is the Forest Service considering development of a new
    budget allocation process?
        Answer. The Forest Service is working on a number of efforts that
    will eventually affect how resources are allocated. In fiscal year 2000
    the agency is implementing a new financial management system (FFIS) and
    will be using a different concept for planning work and charging
    expenditures called Primary Purpose. The primary purpose concept will
    shift some responsibilities among programs and could affect the
    criteria used to allocate funds in some programs. Our new financial
    system will allow us to better align expenditures with work which
    should eventually allow us to use unit costs in conjunction with
    performance information to allocate funds. The agency is also working
    with the Congress and the Administration to simplify our budget
    structure. The consolidation of funding sources, coupled with a greater
    reliance on performance measures to assess agency performance, will
    necessitate a change in the basis for allocating funds. Whether this
    basis will still be referred to as criteria or something else will be
    determined later.
        Question. Last year, the Stewardship Incentives Program was not
    funded. What effect has this had on the ability of the U.S. Forest
    Service or state forestry departments to work with private landowners
    to develop sustainable forestry practices?
        Answer. SIP encourages landowners to adopt a wide variety of
    sustainable forestry practices including fish and wildlife habitat
    improvement, recreational improvements, timber stand improvements,
    agroforestry and others. Many of these practices provide benefits that
    extend beyond the boundaries of the ownerships on which they are
    implemented. SIP fills a somewhat unique niche in the Forest Service
    and State array of services to non-industrial private forests in that
    it allows the provision of cost-shares to landowners who otherwise
    might be unlikely to initiate such practices. Since its inception in
    1991, the SIP program has enabled the States to assist over 36,000
    landowners (an average of 5,000 landowners each year). Without SIP, the
    ability to encourage landowners to adopt sustainable forestry practices
    will be severely reduced.
        Question. On those lands that receive technical or financial
    assistance from U.S. Forest Service Cooperative Programs, how much
    board feet is produced annually? How does the cost of production on
    those lands compare to production on public forest lands?
        Answer. The Stewardship Incentive and Forest Stewardship Programs
    support the sound stewardship of non-industrial private forest (NIPF)
    lands. The Forest Service 1993 RPA Timber Assessment Update estimated
    that in 1991 approximately 4,238 million cubic feet of softwood and
    5,252 million cubic feet of hardwood (i.e. a total of 9,490 million
    cubic feet) was harvested from NIPF lands. A rough conversion to board
    feet would be: 21,190 million (softwood); 26,260 million (hardwood);
    and 47,450 million (total).
        There are no national figures available comparing the cost of
    timber production from NIPF lands with that of production on public
    lands. Timber production costs vary significantly from region to region
    depending upon nature of terrain, tree species, and other ecological
    factors, as well as cost of labor and level of management. It has
    generally been asserted that the cost of timber production on federal
    lands is higher than that on State government or private lands.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. Chief Dombeck, last week a bipartisan group of seven
    members of Congress wrote you expressing concerns with implementation
    of the Quincy Library Group legislation. What is the Forest Service
    doing to address those concerns?
        Answer. The Agency recently met with staff from offices of
    concerned Members and Committees to answer their questions. That
    discussion proved productive and helpful. The Agency is also responding
    directly to the concerns in a letter that the Members should receive
    shortly.
        Question. The Forest Service has told the Quincy Library Group and
    my staff that it interprets the Quincy Library Group legislation to
    preclude any planning for fuel breaks prior to completion of the
    Environmental Impact Statement. Under this interpretation, it is
    possible that no fuel breaks will be constructed until 2001. Such a
    slow implementation of the law certainly was not Congress' intent, and
    I am pleased to see that in a memo dated April 8, the Forest Service
    now says they will begin planning for Quincy Library Group projects
    this year. When do you intend to begin such planning? Will fuel breaks
    be constructed in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. It is true that planning for specific projects will happen
    after a decision is reached through the EIS/NEPA process. However, the
    Agency's intent is to both plan for and begin implementing Quincy
    Library Group projects in fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Forests
    are doing more generalized planning in fiscal year 1999 not
    specifically related to the decision that will come from the EIS, but
    helps set the stage for implementation of QLG projects.
        Question. The Forest Service says it will only plan Quincy Library
    Group projects this year as staff resources and funding allow. Since
    the Forest Service received $8 million to implement the Quincy Library
    Group project in fiscal year 1999, and since the Forest Service informs
    my staff that the Environmental Impact Statement will cost only $2
    million, doesn't it seem that funding is sufficient for extensive
    planning to occur this year?
        Answer. The priority in fiscal year 1999 is the completion of the
    Environmental Impact Statement by 8/17/99. Funds not expended in fiscal
    year 1999 for the EIS effort will be carried over to fiscal year 2000
    and be used for the planning and implementation of individual projects.
        Question. Is the Forest Service on schedule to complete the
    Environmental Impact Statement by August 17, 1999--the date mandated by
    the legislation?
        Answer. The Record of Decision for the HFQLG was signed on August
    20.
        Question. How will the Sierra Nevada Framework Environmental Impact
    Statement impact the Quincy Library Group pilot project? It is of
    paramount importance that the pilot project be implemented as fully as
    possible.
        Answer. The timeframe extension for completion of the EIS portion
    of the Sierra Nevada Framework Project did not delay preparation of the
    DEIS for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) pilot
    program. The Record of Decision and the FEIS were signed on August 20.
    Project specific planning and implementation are ongoing since release
    of the Record of Decision. Concerning the SNEP Framework D EIS effort
    and the HFQLG project, the current intent is to treat the HFQLG area
    separately for the duration of the HFQLG pilot project. However, it is
    possible that some of the issues addressed in the Sierra Nevada
    Framework DEIS, including wildlife habitat management and riparian
    guidelines, may require some changes to the HFQLG pilot project.
        Question. Given the Administration's support for the Quincy Library
    Group legislation, why doesn't the President's budget include any funds
    specifically to implement the Quincy Library Group project?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget includes $5.4
    million that would be used specifically to implement the Quincy Library
    Group Project in fiscal year 2000. This represents the base level
    funding for the Forests involved. In addition, $6 million from the $8
    million Congressional earmark funding in fiscal year 1999 will carry
    over to fiscal year 2000 and be available to fund QLG projects.
        Question. In 1997 President Clinton committed $25 million in new
    money over two years to restore the environment at Lake Tahoe. But that
    two year period has expired, and in fiscal year 2000 the President is
    requesting only about $5 million for environmental projects at Lake
    Tahoe, including $4.2 million for the Forest Service. What steps are
    you taking to ensure that Tahoe remains a priority area for water
    quality improvements and fire risk reduction?
        Answer. Success in meeting the environmental challenges posed at
    Lake Tahoe will rely heavily on building and maintaining collaborative
    relationships among individuals and organizations linked to the Lake.
    These cooperative efforts will allow the Agency and others to make the
    most effective use of the dollars allocated. The Forest Service
    continues to support a range of collaborative efforts with those goals
    in mind, including the Federal Advisory Committee, the Federal
    Interagency Partnership, interagency watershed assessments, the Forest
    Health Consensus Group, and collaborative efforts with the Washoe
    Tribe.
        Question. I am currently writing a bill that would authorize $30
    million annually over 10 years to improve water quality and reduce the
    risk of catastrophic wildfire at Lake Tahoe. Will the Administration
    support this bill as a way to protect and restore one of America's most
    special places?
        Answer. The Administration remains committed to restoring and
    maintaining the health of Lake Tahoe's ecosystems while providing high
    quality recreational experiences. We would carefully consider any
    legislation that achieves the Administration's environmental protection
    goals for Lake Tahoe.
        Question. How did the Forest Service decide on the five areas of
    emphasis for the Sierra Nevada Conservation Framework Environmental
    Impact Statement?
        Answer. Initially, a number of concerns were identified in the
    Sierra Nevada Science Review by a team of scientists building on
    previous works, such as the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report of
    1996. In the Science Review, a set of conservation priorities were
    determined from these concerns using a set of screening criteria (new
    information, broad-scale concerns, urgency for attention, ability to
    affect through national forest management, and problems that were not
    well addressed elsewhere). This set was refined and adjusted, taking
    into consideration public comment and other factors, resulting in the
    five emphasis areas.
        Question. What was the impetus for launching the Conservation
    Framework project?
        Answer. The Framework was a response to concerns on two levels. On
    a broader Sierra- wide level, a variety of recent efforts (most notably
    the 1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report), reinforced the
    conclusion that because the Sierra Nevada's problems were complex,
    interrelated, and multi-jurisdictional, they demanded an exceptionally
    high level of cooperation and collaboration among a broad spectrum of
    interests if they were to be addressed effectively. A primary goal of
    the Framework is to work toward that higher level of collaboration. At
    the same time it was also recognized that the Land Management Plans for
    the national forests across the Sierra needed to be updated in light of
    new information and to improve consistency of management. The current
    EIS portion of the Framework effort is aimed at meeting this need.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gorton. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 22, when
    we will receive testimony from the Honorable Bruce Babbitt,
    Secretary of the Interior.
        [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., Thursday, April 15, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    April 22.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Cochran, Domenici,
    Burns, Campbell, and Byrd.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE
                INTERIOR

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary, welcome to your fifth
    appearance before this subcommittee and in support of the
    Department of Interior's budget request. It is a very real
    pleasure to see you here again.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department of
    the Interior can only be classified as generous. The request is
    more than $7.75 billion for departmental agencies under this
    subcommittee's jurisdiction, an increase of 11 percent. The
    increase would put funding for Interior programs fully $1
    billion over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level.
        Mr. Secretary, there are a large number of programs under
    the Department's jurisdiction that I would be happy to see
    receive increases, but the sheer magnitude of the Department's
    request, the number of new programs it contains, and the nature
    of the broader budget in which the request is contained make it
    difficult to take it seriously.
        Lest anyone in this room need reminding, we are still
    functioning under the statutory spending caps passed by the
    Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1997. The
    President's fiscal year 2000 budget employs a variety of new
    taxes, fees, and accounting gimmicks to reach a total
    discretionary spending level at least $25 billion above the
    statutory discretionary cap for the year 2000.
        Few of the proposals that generate this $25 billion in
    additional spending will be enacted in this Congress, and
    virtually none of that amount is likely to be available to the
    Appropriations Committee when it begins marking up fiscal year
    2000 spending bills.
        Indeed, this subcommittee is still waiting for the Forest
    Service to submit legislative proposals for which the
    President's budget claims some $111 million worth of savings. I
    do not think we will ever see the proposals. In any case, the
    subcommittee will be fortunate to so much as maintain fiscal
    year 1999 funding levels, much less receive a $760 million
    increase.
        Many have speculated that spending caps will be raised this
    summer. This may or may not happen. But to the extent that the
    caps are raised, there are any number of program areas that
    will compete for these additional funds. Just 2 or 3 weeks ago
    we would have talked about education, defense, health care, and
    the like.
        Now the list is about to be overwhelmed by the war in
    Kosovo, which in the view of the chairman is going to have a
    seriously adverse impact on discretionary spending for other
    programs. I cannot imagine that this Congress is going to
    follow President Johnson's example of attempting to finance
    both guns and butter at the same time.
        I make this point, Mr. Secretary, in the hope that you will
    share with us today some of your priorities that will help us
    make the difficult decisions that lie ahead at least a little
    bit less difficult. Is continuing to fund the basic operation
    needs of your agencies the number one priority or are you
    willing to take reductions in existing functions to fund some
    of the new programs that are proposed?
        I hope you will take this remark as a compliment and not a
    criticism, but it is not clear that you had to make any of
    these difficult choices in developing your budget request. It
    looks as though you got just about everything that you asked
    for.
        That said, Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing from
    you today. A full text of your statement will be included in
    the record so that you can summarize your opening remarks and
    leave that much more time for questions.
        And with that, for opening statements I will of course turn
    to my friend and ranking Democratic member, Senator Byrd.

                  Opening statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd

        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Department funded by this subcommittee is $759 million more
    than was appropriated for the current fiscal year. This
    represents an 11 percent increase in funding, as has been
    pointed out by our distinguished chairman, from $7.01 billion
    appropriated for fiscal year 1999 to $7.77 billion requested
    for fiscal year 2000.
        We look forward to your testimony today in support of your
    budget. The Committee on Appropriations' overall funding level
    is $536 billion in budget authority, which according to the CBO
    is $10 billion below a freeze.
        While it is unlikely that the budget allocation for this
    subcommittee will allow for an increase in your budget, much
    less one of the magnitude proposed in the President's request.
    I assure you that Chairman Gorton and I, insofar as I am able
    to do so as the minority member, will do the best that we can
    to secure an allocation for this subcommittee sufficient to
    fund the highest program priorities in your Department.
        I applaud your persuasiveness in achieving an 11 percent
    increase for your programs in the President's budget. However,
    such eloquence in support of program increases will come to
    naught in Congress without a higher allocation than is
    expected.
        The Interior Appropriations Subcommittee expects to have to
    craft a spending bill for fiscal year 2000 that has a tightly
    constrained bottom line and your help, Mr. Secretary, in
    identifying spending priorities at lower funding levels than
    included in the President's request will be appreciated.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I think since I have a
    conflict I will just go when I have the time to ask the
    Secretary some questions.
        Senator Gorton. OK. Senator Burns.

                               Prepared statement

        Senator Burns. I have a written statement too, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you.
        To alert the Secretary, we will be dwelling on George W.
    Beaver and a little coal in southeastern Montana.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the
    committee this morning. I appreciate having the opportunity to spend
    another morning with Secretary Babbitt.
        As you well know, we continue to have a number of disagreements
    with how the agencies under Secretary Babbitt's control are being
    managed. It is no coincidence that Montana's per capita income has
    plummeted in relation to the rest of the country while the Clinton
    Administration has waged war on Montana's industries. In the western
    portion of the state our logging industry has been virtually shut down
    by the actions of the agencies under the control of the man sitting
    before us.
        I receive reams of letters asking why Congress has not done
    anything to rein in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
    Service, but every time we try to do anything President Clinton forces
    a government shut-down. The administration continues to more forward
    with an arrogance rarely witnessed in public service. After expressing
    our concern in past exchanges with Secretary Babbitt, the situation
    only seems to worsen. Recent decisions by his employees have ominous
    implications for the future of the West.
        One recent decision, the Leshy decision on the Crown Jewel mine
    application, will make mining a thing of the past in the United States.
    No one knows what the impact will be on a global basis, but those of us
    from mining states know that it means the death of many of our
    communities. Add to this a roadless moratorium that is killing the
    timber industry, wolf reintroductions that are crippling the livestock
    industry, Endangered Species Listings that make farming almost
    impossible, and you begin to see a picture that is extremely bleak for
    those of us trying to make an honest living off the land.
        Everyone sitting here that has heard me in prior committee hearings
    with Bruce has already heard the tune I am singing. Let me add some new
    comments. Let's talk about our Tidal Basin Beaver. You all know the
    beaver that I am talking about. The beaver that chopped down the cherry
    tree. We'll call him George W. Beaver. The National Park Service says
    the Tidal Basin is prime beaver habitat. Well, then why did we move
    George and his family out? Because it was inconvenient. If we tried to
    do that in the West, Bruce Babbitt and his disciples would have run us
    up a flag pole first, and sued us second. They would have asked for an
    Environmental Impact Statement. They would have asked us why we had the
    audacity to move an animal out of its habitat. But here, in mighty
    Washington, D.C. we don't have to abide by those rules. Those are just
    for the little people out in Montana who don't know any better.
        Another example is the proposed rebuilding of the Wilson Bridge.
    Seems we are a little behind in the environmental assessments necessary
    to make the project fly. The answer some people are coming up with is
    that we need to pass legislation to exempt them from complying with all
    the laws so the project will stay on schedule. Forget it. Learn to live
    by the rules you have subjected to rest of us to. We miss deadlines
    everyday because of your laws, now join us in mutual frustration. Maybe
    you will begin to see just how ludicrous the system has become. I hope
    we find an endangered species right where you plan to put your on-ramp.
    Maybe we will finally see some action on Endangered Species Act reform
    if the commute to Washington is disrupted over a subspecies of beetles.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope you sense my frustration. Secretary Babbitt
    and his agencies are real good at telling us what to do and then
    turning a deaf ear when problems arise. We have asked him to listen
    since he first sat in front of us. He continues to refuse to act on our
    problems, and when the same laws affect urban areas a loophole is
    always discovered. It's too bad small, independent logging companies
    aren't offered the same loopholes. It is time to send a message to
    Secretary Babbitt. If you keep ignoring us, we are going to hit you
    where it hurts. In the budget. I don't care if you want to grandstand,
    but something has got to change. The lives of too many Montanans are
    being ruined by the actions of our land management agencies.

                    Summary statement of Hon. Bruce Babbitt

        Senator Gorton. All right. We get to you pretty rapidly,
    Mr. Secretary. There seems to be a great deal of anticipation.
        Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, with those overwhelmingly
    positive and generous remarks from all members of the
    committee, let me see if I may briefly respond.
        The President's budget includes a nearly 11 percent
    increase. Now, the question you posed is what is it and what
    kinds of offsets and reductions would we propose in an
    alternative scenario. I would remind the committee respectfully
    that of the budget of this Department 80 percent is in fixed
    personnel costs and overhead. Eighty percent.
        The numbers of employees in the Department, from the peak
    when I first came before this committee in 1993, have been
    reduced by 12,000. That is about 15 percent. There is nothing
    left in that. We have cleared out the Washington office. We
    have flattened our organizational structures and taken really
    extreme steps.
        This year's budget does have a personnel increase in it,
    which accounts for a modest piece of that $759 million. The
    increase in personnel that is proposed would bring our
    personnel levels back to the level of 1986, 14 years ago.
        I respectfully suggest that our responsibilities in terms
    of the national parks, visitors, public lands, the
    administration of the Endangered Species Act, mineral leasing
    are self-explanatory in terms of our needs. We cannot scale
    back personnel. We simply cannot. It would be short-sided,
    counterproductive, and I think indefensible for me to advocate
    that.
        So that takes us, it seems to me, to what are the increases
    in the President's budget. I would like to mention two. The
    first one you are all familiar with. It is the Lands Legacy
    Program. Now, I confess paternity as to this program.
        It is our feeling, and has been and was last summer, that
    this Congress and this Government should attempt to go back and
    capture the intent of the original land and water conservation
    legislation that was passed these many years ago. The idea
    being, as I understand it, that $900 million of Federal
    receipts from the expansion of off-shore oil production would
    be made available on an annual basis for, in the broadest
    sense, mitigation, a sense of protection and acquisition of
    important natural resources.
        As we all know, that promise has--implied promise at the
    very least--has never really been fulfilled. That is very
    simply what is behind the President's proposal for a Lands
    Legacy Program of $1 billion a year to be set up on a permanent
    funding basis, with approximately 50 percent of that revenue to
    be subverted or granted directly to the States for important
    preservation projects such as the northern forests in New
    England and a whole variety of other really very urgent State
    conservation issues.
        Within that $1 billion Lands Legacy Program, in terms of
    increases in our budget, I think there are approximately $350
    to $400 million. So in terms of the requested increase in our
    budget, half of it is the Interior share of the Lands Legacy
    Program.
        There is one other item in the budget that I must
    inevitably single out which accounts for a substantial amount,
    and that is a $50 million increase in the Indian Trust Funds
    administration.
        I do not propose to go into the full history of Indian
    Trust Fund administration, which originated--the roots go a
    long way back. The issues originated on March 3, 1849. We are
    dealing, I think, with the help of Congress, up front and
    forthrightly with a massive attempt to try to sort this thing
    out.
        Not withstanding the occasional admonitions from various
    quarters around this town and the press reports, we are making
    strong, significant progress. I would be happy to elaborate on
    that, but I----
        Senator Gorton. That was the subject of a previous hearing.
        Secretary Babbitt. OK. The important thing is that in order
    to meet the court deadlines, the court mandates, and to keep
    this on track, we really must find some way to have that
    additional $50 million.
        Perhaps I should stop right there. I would simply say that
    generally I think things are moving along well. Our Y2K
    compliance is 100 percent. We have all of our systems up. They
    have been tested by outside advisers in a redundant manner.
    They are up and ready to go.
        This past year we have had clean audits Department-wide for
    the second consecutive year. We are making excellent progress
    in the Everglades. It is a large item in this budget this year.
    There is a GAO report out. I believe, again, that would be the
    subject of a separate hearing.

                               prepared statement

        I just want to say that I think the GAO report is helpful
    and that the suggestions contained in it are issues that need
    attention, particularly in terms of the long-range direction
    and governance of this project after the Congress gets the
    Corps of Engineers restudy this summer.
        Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should stop right there and submit
    myself to your tender mercies.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Bruce Babbitt
        I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies to present the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
    Department of the Interior.
        The 2000 budget is a landmark budget because it will be the first
    budget of the new century, and because it is a bold and forward looking
    statement by the President of the importance of resource and Indian
    trust stewardship. Focused around the theme, ``Guardians of the Past;
    Stewards for the Future,'' the 2000 budget will allow us to make
    important investments in land and resources, and to meet our
    responsibilities to Tribes.
        As we approach the 150th anniversary of the creation of the
    Department of the Interior, this budget gives us cause for optimism and
    sets a new direction for the next 150 years. Since I became Secretary
    in 1993, this Department has aggressively streamlined operational
    programs and processes to improve efficiency and the delivery of
    services to the public. As a result, we are more unified, more clear in
    our purpose and mission, and are well-positioned to undertake the
    challenges of the next century.
        The Department's activities are a part of the day-to-day lives of
    all Americans and touch on all aspects of the economic and cultural
    life of this Nation. Every year 379 million people, more than the
    population of the United States, visit our National Parks, National
    Wildlife Refuges and public lands. The 445 million acres of lands that
    this Department manages are a source of meaningful outdoor and
    educational experiences for these visitors. In addition, we supply
    water to approximately 31 million people throughout the west and
    provide services and support for self-determination to 1.2 million
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        This broad mandate for the Department of the Interior had its
    genesis with the creation of the Home Department, which was established
    in March 1849 to house agencies concerned with the management of
    domestic issues. Since that time, the mission of the Department has
    been shaped by the changing needs of the American people, evolving from
    the Home Department of the 19th century, through the bygone eras of
    great westward expansion, the conservation age at the beginning of the
    20th century, the Great Depression and Civilian Conservation Corps
    years, and the post World War II baby boom. Today the principal mission
    of the Department is the conservation and management of natural and
    cultural resources, the protection and encouragement of Indian self-
    determination, and the fulfillment of Federal trust responsibilities to
    American Indians.
        Driven by the strong, continuous growth of the economy and the
    public's appetite for outdoor recreation and outdoor experiences, the
    Department has evolved new approaches that consider the twin goals of
    growing the economy and protecting and restoring the Nation's natural
    and cultural resources. We have made great strides in recent years by
    embarking on the restoration of precious ecosystems in a way that
    enriches neighboring communities, resulting in the following success
    stories:
      --in South Florida we are working in partnership with the State and
            others to restore the Everglades, recreating the 17,000 square
            mile sea of grass;
      --we continue our work with States, Tribes, communities, and private
            landowners to implement new, innovative approaches to the
            Endangered Species Act. For the first time in 60 years we have
            healthy, reproductive populations of gray wolves in Yellowstone
            National Park;
      --we are embarking on the fifth year of Forest Plan implementation,
            demonstrating how cooperative partnerships between Federal
            agencies and local interests can effectively promote wise land
            stewardship; and
      --in partnership with the State of California, we completed the
            purchase of the 7,400-acre Headwaters ancient redwood forest,
            the largest stand of privately-owned ancient redwoods in the
            country.
        In addition, the Department has developed five-year plans for
    maintenance and construction to improve management and accountability
    for the Department's infrastructure and to focus funding on the highest
    priority health and safety and resource protection needs. We are proud
    of these accomplishments and appreciate the Subcommittee's support of
    these efforts.
                                budget overview
        The 2000 budget requests $8.7 billion in funds subject to annual
    appropriation. This request is fully funded within the President's
    balanced budget and includes an increase of $832 million, or 11
    percent, over 1999 funding levels. An estimated $2.2 billion will be
    provided in permanent appropriations.
        For Department programs under the jurisdiction of theSubcommittee,
    the request for annual appropriations is $7.8 billion for 2000. This is
    an increase of $717 million in current budget authority from total
    appropriations provided in the 1999 Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act.
        Within this increase, $139 million or 18 percent of the increase is
    requested for uncontrollable cost increases in order to continue
    Departmental programs at current operational levels in 2000. The
    budget:
      --proposes funding for the President's Lands Legacy Initiative, to
            protect America's land resources and establish a new
            partnership with States, Tribes and local governments;
      --provides resources for broad-based restoration efforts including
            public lands restoration and science tools to support these
            efforts, continuation of our successful ecosystem restoration
            efforts, restoration of species and cultural resources, and
            facilities repair and rehabilitation; and
      --requests funding to continue to improve life in Indian Country
            through enhanced education programs, school construction, law
            enforcement, Tribal buffalo programs, and aggressive efforts to
            resolve trust management problems.
        The level of staffing proposed for 2000 is comparable with
    employment levels in the Department in 1987. The 2000 budget proposes
    to increase staffing by only two percent, as compared to the increased
    funding request of 11 percent. The Department will continue to operate
    efficiently, having taken an aggressive approach to streamlining,
    reducing headquarters staffs and management layers, reengineering
    processes, and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our
    program delivery at the field level. Between the period 1993-1997,
    staffing was reduced by 15 percent. The new staff we are requesting for
    2000 will focus on direct service to the public and on-the-ground
    restoration.
                                  lands legacy
        At the start of the century, President Theodore Roosevelt called on
    Americans to save the best of our natural endowment for all time. His
    legacy is seen across the country in parks, forests, and wildlife
    refuges. President Clinton's Lands Legacy Initiative renews America's
    commitment to its natural environment. This 2000 budget proposal
    provides significant new resources to protect local green spaces and
    increases protection for our oceans and coasts. It recognizes that
    carrying out this commitment must include not only resources for
    Federal land acquisition, but also resources directed to States, local
    communities, and Tribes to address their local needs in their own ways.
    The interagency Lands Legacy Initiative provides roughly equal amounts
    of funding for Federal land acquisition and funds to States, local
    communities, and Tribes for acquisition and other conservation
    purposes. The initiative includes $900 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF), marking the first time any Administration has
    requested the full $900 million authorized to be deposited in LWCF in
    its annual budget. The initiative includes $579 million for Department
    of the Interior programs, which is an increase of $84.5 million from
    the 1999 level.
        The Lands Legacy Initiative includes $295 million for Federal land
    acquisition by Interior, an increase of $84.5 million over current year
    levels. With this infusion of funding, we have an opportunity to
    preserve aspects of our natural and cultural legacy for all time. Our
    efforts will focus particularly on five major areas, including the
    California Desert, Civil War Battlefields, the Lewis and Clark Trail,
    refuges in the Northern Forest, and the Everglades. Funding for these
    five areas totals $163.7 million. An additional $130.3 million is
    requested for land acquisition in other areas to protect priority
    natural and cultural resources, like the addition of 31 acres at
    Florida's Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, established as the
    first refuge by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903.
        A total of $80 million, an increase of $66 million, will allow
    States and localities to continue to grow while conserving and
    recovering imperiled species. Funding will be provided to States and
    local communities for habitat conservation planning and land
    acquisition, candidate conservation agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements,
    and other collaborative strategies to help communities deal with the
    pressures of economic growth in a context of declining habitat. This
    proposal is a win-win approach to species protection, as it will
    provide incentives for landowners to protect plants and wildlife on
    their property and will accelerate the States' ability to restore
    declining species in time to keep them off the endangered species list.
        The Lands Legacy Initiative includes $150 million for a LWCF
    competitive grants program that will assist States, local communities,
    and Tribes to preserve green space. This is an opportunity for us to
    establish new partnerships with States, Tribes, and local governments
    to enrich our cities, towns, and suburbs. In America today there is a
    resurgent sense of the need to preserve open space and the quality of
    life in our communities, and this program can provide dramatic results
    by leveraging Federal funds with non-Federal sources. This proposal
    will allow us to work with the Congress on framing a viable program
    that will result in increased open spaces, greenways, and other areas
    for outdoor recreation, urban parks, wildlife habitat, and coastal
    wetlands.
        Open space protection is gaining momentum at State, regional, and
    local levels as a means to protect farmland, maintain natural
    surroundings, and combat sprawl. Across the country in ballot measures,
    the American people are supporting the need for local p lanning and
    protection that guides development and the establishment and protection
    of open space. The 2000 budget includes $50 million for matching grants
    to States and Indian Tribes to support open space planning. An
    additional $4 million is proposed for matching grants and technical
    assistance for the restoration of parks in economically distressed
    urban communities.
                                   livability
        The Lands Legacy Program is complemented by a second Administration
    initiative, the Livability Agenda, which encompasses a broad array of
    issues that relate to quality of life, including transportation, safe
    streets and economic competitiveness. The Li vability Agenda proposes
    that the federal government work in partnership with local communities
    to protect green space for wildlife and recreation, ease traffic
    congestion, and pursue regional ``smart growth'' strategies.
        The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request to support major
    livability programs, includes $39.5 million for an interagency
    Community/Federal Information Partnership that will accomplish two
    primary objectives. First, approximately 60 percent of the funding will
    be available as competitive, matching grants to local, regional, and
    national non-Federal agencies and organizations to build local capacity
    to use GIS technology. Second, the remainder of the funding will be
    used to improve public access to geographic information residing in
    federal agencies. Six pilot projects have been launched and are
    designed to show how geospatial data and maps from various government
    agencies can help communities make sound decisions about local issues
    such as watershed and water quality management, disaster preparedness
    and recovery, and land use planning. The Department has a lead role in
    this partnership and under this program, USGS would receive $10
    million, and BLM, $2 million.
                                  restoration
        At the turn of the century the concept of preservation was firmly
    adopted by the American public. Deeply rooted in the ideals of
    President Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, and Aldo Leopold, preservation
    was the clarion call that created a national imperative to preserve
    wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, national parks, and wildlife
    refuges. These national treasures are an admirable and important legacy
    and we are the guardians of that legacy. Moving beyond our
    responsibilities for stewardship of these national treasures we have
    come to understand the importance of the entire landscape that extends
    outside the boundaries of our public lands.
        Migratory birds follow historic flyways in their routes from summer
    to wintering habitat that know no park, refuge, or other boundary.
    Salmon and trout move in rivers and streams in a natural rhythm that
    links to a world that existed before boundaries were established. To
    protect these wild stocks and heal the land, we have to understand that
    all the components of an ecosystem are interconnected. Cut too many
    trees in the headwaters of a stream, and you send a pulse of sediment
    into the current impacting aquatic life. Our role as guardians of the
    past and stewards for the future compels us to approach issues and
    identify solutions on a landscape scale. This budget proposes
    significant resources to restore public lands and work outside these
    boundaries in the restoration of fish, wildlife, and natural
    communities.
                              restoring ecosystems
        The President's Northwest Forest Summit in April, 1993 brought us a
    new vision for approaches that serve nature and the Nation's economic
    future. This vision recognizes that understanding landscapes as
    complex, living, and integrated systems can result in better ways of
    living on and prospering from the land, while protecting species and
    preserving nature's special places. Over the last six years the
    Administration has implemented three large scale restoration efforts
    that embrace this vision using new methods, partnerships, and renewed
    public participation. The 2000 budget includes $68.1 million for the
    Department to press ahead with implementation of the Northwest Forest
    Plan. The Department will also continue to lead the Administration's
    efforts to restore two priority watersheds, the Florida Everglades and
    California's Bay-Delta.
        Since 1993, when the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
    was established, over $955 million in Federal funds and $1.5 billion in
    State funds have been directed to this project, which is the largest
    watershed restoration effort ever undertaken. We recently completed
    negotiations to acquire the 50,000 acre Talisman properties and have
    issued a draft multi-species recovery plan addressing the habitat and
    individual needs of 68 listed species. In 2000, the Department's
    request for Everglades restoration totals $151.5 million, an increase
    of $7.4 million over 1999, which will support park and refuge
    operations, hydrologic modeling, multi-species recovery, research, land
    acquisition, and construction of the Modified Water Delivery Project
    for Everglades National Park.
        The 2000 request for the Energy and Water Development bill also
    contains $75 million to continue implementation of the California Bay-
    Delta ecosystem restoration program and $20 million to initiate high
    priority activities to address water use efficiency, water quality, and
    watershed management issues.
                   restoring parks, refuges and public lands
        In NPS, FWS, BLM, and OSM increased funding is requested for
    operational programs in order to conduct restoration activities.
      --NPS is requesting an increase of $25 million for management of
            natural resources which will accelerate efforts to acquire data
            on natural resources, completing all natural resource
            inventories in seven years. NPS will control 11,000 additional
            acres of exotic species annually (a 43 percent increase) and
            restore an additional 150 acres disturbed by mines, roads, and
            other facilities that are no longer in use.
      --For FWS, an increase of $18.1 million will fund habitat restoration
            projects on 200 refuges and eradication of invasive, nuisance
            species on 48 refuges. Planned projects will restore historic
            wetland habitat, endangered species habitat, and unique
            ecosystems.
      --BLM will dedicate an increase of $10.9 million to rangeland
            improvements and an aggressive weed control effort to sustain
            productive landscapes.
      --OSM is requesting $25.3 million to increase by 15 percent the
            reclamation of land damaged by past mining practices to
            productive use and to restore water resources contaminated by
            acid mine drainage.
        The wildland fire program will promote ecosystem health, while
    lowering the risk of severe fires and long-term suppression costs. In
    2000, the request of $350.9 million will allow us to treat more than
    one million acres of land and reduce hazardous fuel loads, a tripling
    of effort since this program began.
                                    science
        In 1996, we consolidated the science and technology functions of
    Interior. As a result, the USGS is able to provide a full spectrum of
    scientific expertise to the Department, other agencies, and the public.
    This multi-disciplinary expertise is critical to the effectiveness of
    our land management and restoration programs supporting the development
    of advanced tools including modeling, decision support systems, and
    monitoring protocols. The 2000 budget includes $18.5 million in new
    funding to aggressively respond to the science needs of land management
    bureaus and provide the tools that are needed for wise stewardship of
    the landscape.
                               restoring species
        The near extinction of the buffalo and the extinction of the
    passenger pigeon at the end of the 19th century brought an end to the
    American myth of endless abundance. As President of the United States,
    Theodore Roosevelt created five national parks, four big game refuges,
    and 51 national bird reservations in order to preserve natural
    resources which were, in his view, an essential part of the American
    landscape and culture. As we approach the end of the 20th century, the
    importance of protecting and restoring ecosystems and individual
    species components of ecosystems is widely accepted. The Congress
    enacted landmark legislation including the Bald Eagle Protection Act,
    the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
    African Elephant Conservation Act in recognition of the importance of
    protecting and recovering individual species as components of healthy,
    viable ecosystems.
        Through partnerships with States, local communities, and non-profit
    groups, and expanded involvement with private landowners, the
    Department has been able to more effectively protect threatened and
    endangered species, while allowing economic development to proceed. The
    efforts of the FWS, Forest Service, and State of Nevada in the Spring
    Mountains exemplify our new approach to endangered species
    conservation. In these snow capped mountain ranges, these three
    agencies have come together to craft a conservation agreement that will
    safeguard 57 rare and sensitive species while accommodating the growing
    numbers of recreational visitors.
        The 2000 budget includes $115 million for FWS endangered species
    operations, an increase of $24.1 million to expand the use of
    innovative tools that protect species and permit sound economic
    development. In partnership with States, local communities, non-profit
    groups and private landowners, FWS will utilize candidate conservation
    agreements to keep species off the list of threatened and endangered
    species, expand habitat conservation planning to allow economic
    development to proceed while protecting species on private lands,
    continue the no-surprises policy to assure private landowners that
    agreements jointly negotiated will be honored, conduct streamlined
    consultations, and increase Safe Harbor Agreements to ensure that
    community and species goals can be met. This operational funding level
    is supported by the request of $80 million for the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund that I described earlier.
        More than 160 parks provide important, protected habitat to restore
    endangered species. At least 168 Federally-listed species occur on NPS
    lands and are the subject of over 2,000 recovery tasks assigned to the
    National Park Service. Recovery tasks include wolf re-introduction in
    Yellowstone National Park, control of exotic species in Hawaiian parks,
    and public education and law enforcement patrols for endangered species
    collectors. The 2000 budget includes $4 million for native and exotic
    species management which will, in part, address recovery of species
    including the Kemp's ridley turtle and the black-footed ferret which
    depend on the National Park System for their survival.
        In 1986 Congress enacted revisions to the Federal Power Act of 1920
    that changed the relicensing process for the nation's 2,600 privately-
    owned hydroelectric dams. These changes required the consideration of
    fish and wildlife, energy conservation, and rec reational
    opportunities, and have led to modifications in dam operations to
    increase stream flows, installation of fish passage facilities, and
    protection of local riparian lands. We successfully demonstrated the
    success of modifying dam operations to restore habitat and recreational
    uses without negatively impacting power and water use with the flooding
    of Glen Canyon Dam in 1996. The 2000 budget requests $7.6 million to
    restore native fisheries including acceleration of hydropower
    relicensing review activities. Through a collaborative process with dam
    operators and other stakeholders, FWS will use a balanced approach to
    address fisheries needs while meeting needs for power, agriculture, and
    recreation. A companion request of $3.9 million will fund on-the-ground
    restoration projects to be matched by organizations such as Trout
    Unlimited and $1 million for the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation's efforts in fisheries restoration.
                     focus on emerging biological problems
        In 1915, the Sierra Nevada in California was filled with the sound
    of croaking frogs and toads. Biologists who surveyed the amphibians
    recorded one species, the western toad, as ``exceedingly abundant.''
    When researchers revisited the study sites in 1995, they recorded only
    one adult western toad and a small group of tadpoles. Amphibians are
    the ``canary in the coal mine'' for ecosystems, letting us know with
    their disappearance that something is wrong. The 2000 Interior budget
    proposes to increase fundi ng by $8.1 million in order to investigate
    the causes for amphibian population declines.
        Called the ``rain forests of the sea,'' coral reefs are one of the
    most biologically complex and diverse ecosystems on earth, providing
    habitat for one-third of all marine fish species. In addition, coral
    reefs provide a protective barrier for shorelines and are crucial to
    the tourism industries of many States and territories. President
    Clinton recently signed an Executive Order establishing the U.S. Coral
    Reef Task Force to coordinate interagency efforts to protect and
    restore our coral reefs. The 2000 budget for Interior includes $7.2
    million for coral reef protection, management, and restoration.
        The geographic and ecological areas that encompass Alaska and
    Hawaii are unique and rich in natural resources. These areas share
    other common qualities in that they are remote and are home to species
    and habitats that are found nowhere else. In a focused program to
    address the unique problems and restoration challenges in Alaska and
    Hawaii, the Department is requesting $4.4 million to conduct natural
    resource protection and restoration activities, and expand public use
    and educational opportunities.
                          safe visits to public lands
        The Department manages an extensive infrastructure to meet the
    needs of 379 million visitors to national parks, national wildlife
    refuges, and other public lands. Well-maintained facilities are
    critical to the safe enjoyment of these visitors and to the safety of
    45,000 employees and 53,000 students attending BIA schools. In 1999 the
    Department proposed an aggressive Safe Visits to Public Lands
    Initiative to improve management and accountability for the
    Department's infrastructure and focus funding on highest priority
    health and safety and resource protection needs.
        The Department has developed a five-year plan that provides a
    framework for improved planning and management of maintenance and
    construction programs. The plan provides an improved understanding of
    the scope of deferred maintenance and a baseline to monitor progress
    toward correcting health and safety and resource deficiencies at
    Departmental facilities. In order to implement the plan, the
    Department's 2000 budget includes $910.1 million, including $555.8
    million in maintenance and $354.3 million in construction, an increase
    of $51.2 million, or six percent, over 1999.
        One final component of the restoration theme is the Save America's
    Treasures program. The Subcommittee worked with us last year to
    initiate a program that provides matching grants to public-private
    partnerships to preserve America's cultural treasures and increase
    opportunities for learning. The 2000 budget includes $30 million to
    continue this program. In addition, the 2000 budget includes $15
    million for badly needed repairs to preserve structures of great
    historic significance at historically black colleges and universities
    and $5 million to develop a national digital library of records of
    American achievements in history and arts and sciences.
                   seven generations into the future and past
        When deliberating an issue, American Indians take into
    consideration lessons learned by past generations and the potential
    impact on future generations. This simple, yet sage approach provides
    an important framework for current policy decisions. The 2000 budget
    request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is $1.9 billion, an increase
    of $155.6 million above the 1999 enacted level, providing increases for
    educational programs, school facility construction, law enforcement,
    natural resources management, and other priority funding needs.
        Throughout Indian Country, children are learning in schools that
    present serious health and safety threats. Many schools have leaky
    roofs, peeling paint, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate heating
    and cooling systems that impede students' ability to learn. In spite of
    improved efficiencies, BIA's education repair needs are growing and now
    exceed $740 million. In 2000, the Administration is proposing a School
    Bonding Initiative that will provide $400 million in bonding issuance
    authority over two years. Tribal governments will be able to use this
    authority to issue bonds to investors who will receive tax credits for
    the life of the bond in lieu of interest. To help Tribes participate in
    this Initiative, $30 million is included in the BIA's 2000 budget
    request. The 2000 request also includes $75.9 million to replace Seba
    Dalkai School in Arizona and Fond Du Lac Ojibway School in Minnesota
    and to complete repair work at existing facilities.
        An Executive Order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education
    sets forth six goals to improve academic performance and reduce the
    dropout rate for Indian students, including improved reading and
    mathematics, increased school completion, improved science education,
    and expanded use of education technology. The 2000 budget for School
    Operations includes an investment of $503.6 million in support of these
    goals, to cover increased costs for teachers, transportation of
    children to schools, and expanded operations to respond to a growing
    student population. The budget also provides a $7.1 million increase
    for operating grants to 28 tribally controlled community colleges.
    These colleges are a critical component of efforts to help Native
    Americans secure professional employment and promote entrepreneurship
    on reservations.
        American Indians are victims of violent crimes at more than twice
    the rate of all U.S. residents, while tribal law enforcement receives
    only one-fourth the resources of comparable rural law enforcement
    agencies. In order to combat rising crime rates in Indian Country, a
    multi-year program was initiated in 1999, implementing a plan developed
    by Interior and the Department of Justice, in collaboration with tribal
    governments. The 1999 appropriation provided $20 million for BIA and
    $89 million in Justice grant funding to begin to improve tribal law
    enforcement programs. The 2000 budget includes $20 million increase for
    the second year of this initiative, which will allow BIA to increase
    the number of criminal investigators and uniformed police, upgrade
    radio systems, and strengthen detention center services. The Department
    of Justice is requesting $124.2 million in 2000 to strengthen law
    enforcement programs and direct funding to drug testing and treatment,
    juvenile justice, assistance to tribal courts, and detention center
    construction.
        A close spiritual and cultural connection exists among the buffalo,
    American Indians, and the ecosystem of the plains. For thousands of
    years the buffalo took care of Indian people, providing warmth, food,
    and a way of life. Tribes are reestablishing herds of buffalo, and over
    the last ten years have created hundreds of jobs by raising buffalo. To
    strengthen tribal efforts to bring back the buffalo, a $1 million
    increase is requested in the 2000 budget to be used to support tribal
    buffalo programs, rangeland management, and related economic and
    development efforts.
                      tribal trust management improvement
        One of the highest priorities of the Administration is to
    successfully resolve the Indian trust fund management problems that
    have accumulated over the last 70 years. I have committed to clean up
    this problem on my watch. Significant progress has already been
    achieved as the Office of the Special Trustee has initiated action to
    replace key systems for lease management, accounts receivable, land
    records, and trust resources management, and is installing an
    accounting system.
        The 2000 budget requests $100 million to continue the
    implementation of trust management improvements, which will provide an
    increase of $50.5 million for trust reform activities. The budget
    includes $10 million for continued implementation of the Indian Land
    Consolidation Project, which will commence on three reservations in
    1999. The 2000 budget increase of $5 million will allow the pilot
    program to be expanded to one more reservation in 2000. Beginning in
    2000 we will make a significant change in the budgetary classification
    of tribal trust funds, approximately $2.1 billion of tribal trust funds
    will be reclassified as non-budgetary, similar to the classification of
    individual Indian money accounts.
                                   conclusion
        I believe that the 2000 budget for the Department of the Interior
    sets a bold, new direction for the new millennium and the next 150
    years of operation of this Department. I look forward to working with
    you on this budget and resolving the challenges that come our way
    throughout the year.
        This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.

        Senator Gorton. There is a vote on the floor of the Senate
    at 11:30, which is in effect the terminus of this hearing. As
    usual, with the large number of questions I have, I am going to
    defer my own until last. So for any other member who is still
    here, I am going to take the last part, so there should be some
    limitation.
        I am going to recognize Senator Byrd first for questions. I
    know my three Republican colleagues who are here now, each of
    them has one kind of priority or another. You were here in the
    order of Campbell, Burns, Domenici, but if you want to settle
    among you any different order of being recognized, you can do
    that in the next couple of minutes.
        With that, Senator Byrd.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will operate on
    the 5 minute----
        Senator Gorton. That is awfully restrictive. I just ask you
    to--ask the members to be reasonable.
        Senator Byrd. Yes. OK. You are about the most sensible
    chairman I have seen around here in a long time. I find it kind
    of hard to confine myself to 5 minutes. [Laughter.]
        That is no reflection on the other chairmen. They are fine,
    too.

                                   corridor h

        Mr. Secretary, you are one of my favorites, too.
        Let us talk about Corridor H. Mr. Secretary, would you
    report on the status of the Keeper's response to West Virginia
    on determination of eligibility for Corridor H?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, as the subcommittee may know,
    having been summoned to your office and horsewhipped in, I
    might say, appropriate fashion some months ago, I responded by
    making a trip to Charleston to meet with the Governor of West
    Virginia, summoned in the Keeper, and have paid close attention
    to this issue.
        I think we are making progress. On April 16 the Park
    Service completed its evaluation of the two requests that were
    submitted back in March by the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Park Service completed its evaluation and at this time
    there are no requests for determinations of eligibility pending
    before the Keeper. We have that part of this problem, I
    believe, taken care of.
        Senator Byrd. Let me compliment you on the attention that
    you have given to this matter and on the suggestions that you
    have made. I think you have been very helpful.
        For this Corridor H package, did the Keeper withhold any
    final action pending receipt of additional information or
    overturn any of the eligibility determinations made by the
    State?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I believe of the 33 properties
    that were submitted, there were three where there was
    insufficient information. The Keeper, I think, on those has
    asked the Federal Highway Administration to provide the
    material. I think that no eligibility determinations were
    overturned, because one small boundary change and this
    remaining information, I believe, is the one additional thing
    that we need to dispense with. Actually, there are a couple of
    those.

                            keeper responsibilities

        Senator Byrd. What additional responsibilities does the
    Office of the Keeper have with regard to completing Corridor H?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, first, the Keeper needs to
    complete the final action on those three properties once we get
    the information from the Federal Highway Administration. I
    believe the Highway Administration will also be submitting a
    request for determination of eligibility for the Coketon area,
    which the FHA, I think, has said they will submit in the next 2
    weeks.
        Once these evaluations are completed, the Keeper's role in
    Corridor H will terminate.
        Senator Byrd. Once the State has submitted the additional
    material as requested by the Keeper for the three items
    included in the March 8 package, how long will it take the
    Keeper to rule on those three items?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the Keeper, under the
    regulations, is required to respond within 45 days from the
    date of receipt of that material by the Keeper.
        In this case, I think the review period is going to be
    shorter, basically because the Keeper is essentially familiar
    with the properties in question. They have not yet seen the
    documentation for Coketon, and that will require perhaps a
    little more detailed review. But as a result of our little
    session some months ago, I believe that the Keeper understands
    that the deadlines will be met with no exceptions.
        Senator Byrd. I remain unconvinced that the Keeper should
    have the power to overturn decisions of the State in
    determinations of eligibility. If the State has an approved
    historic preservation program and the State historic
    preservation officer rules in agreement with the appropriate
    Federal agency that a particular property is or is not eligible
    for inclusion in the National Register, then the Keeper's
    review and ruling appear to be superfluous and wasteful.
        It seems to me that this is another case where the Federal
    Government is abrogating State rights and responsibilities and
    bogging down the process in additional red tape and costing the
    taxpayers additional dollars.
        Our discussions on this matter, Mr. Secretary, over the
    past several years have focused on the need for speeding up the
    process of making determinations of eligibility. I realize that
    the process is to a certain extent dictated by regulation and
    that to change regulations is a time consuming process itself.
        In your reply of February 9 of this year to my letter of
    October 22 of last year you indicated an additional position
    would be delegated to making determinations of eligibility, for
    which I thank you, but that other ways of expediting the
    process were either not possible or practical.
        Would you please provide for the record a table showing the
    number of determinations of eligibility that were made by the
    Keeper for each of the past 5 years, the number of
    determinations of eligibility that were eligible for an
    expedited review under current regulations, and the number of
    expedited reviews conducted by the Keeper?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to do that.
        [The information follows:]
      Determinations of Eligibility by the National Register of Historic
                                     Places
                         determinations of eligibility
        The National Register of Historic Places made determinations of
    eligibility on 1,013 properties during fiscal years 1994 through 1998
    in response to requests from Federal agencies. This total is displayed
    by fiscal year as follows:

                                                           Determinations of
            Fiscal year                                          eligibility
    1994..............................................................   104
    1995..............................................................    89
    1996..............................................................    43
    1997..............................................................   164
    1998..............................................................   613

                                expedited review
        National Park Service regulations (36 CFR 63.3) provide that when
    agencies and State Historic Preservation Officers ``agree that the
    property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register,'' the
    Keeper of the National Register shall make determinations of
    eligibility within 10 working days of receipt of the request. All other
    properties are evaluated within 45 days of receiving adequate
    documentation.
        The NPS cannot provide the total number of determinations of
    eligibility that were eligible for an expedited review, or the number
    of expedited reviews conducted during the last five years. The National
    Register Information System (NRIS) database cannot currently identify
    10-working-day determinations of eligibility or properties that SHPOs
    and Federal agencies agree are eligible. In conjunction with work to
    update the NRIS and make it Y2K-compliant, however, the NPS will be
    able to report on these determinations in the future.

                         determinations of Eligibility

        Senator Byrd. Making accurate and efficient determinations
    of eligibility is absolutely critical to moving forward on many
    State and Federal projects, not just in West Virginia but all
    across our land, and yet it is clear from the budget
    justification for the National Park Service that making
    determinations of eligibility is not a priority of the National
    Register Program.
        The listed priorities are, and I quote, ``improving public
    access to the National Register, expanding and improving the
    data in the National Register database, and improving the
    archiving of records.''
        Given the ramifications and costs to the taxpayer
    associated with delays in eligibility determinations, why are
    these determinations not being given the highest priority of
    the National Register Program?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the National Register was set
    up in a rather complex and information intensive process. As
    these properties come up they are identified through the
    eligibility process. The most important part of this is the
    mandatory review period that applies to nominations and
    determination of eligibility.
        I cannot change that. But I do believe that your question
    about resources is warranted and that we have learned from this
    process. I think it is important that we try to make certain
    that we are devoting the resources necessary to get this done.
    I cannot justify the delays that have occurred in the past.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Mr. Chairman, I have one more
    question, if I may proceed with that one.
        Senator Gorton. Go ahead.

               Role of Advisory Council for Historic Preservation

        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I understand that you also
    serve on the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. The
    State of West Virginia has indicated recently its growing
    concerns with this council's impact rulings on Corridor H. What
    is your opinion as to the role of this council in completing
    Corridor H?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think the bottom line is that
    the council does not have statutory authority to impact or
    delay projects. I acknowledge that litigants frequently use the
    council's opinions in litigation. That is a statutory reality.
        I think the original purpose of this council was to try to
    facilitate, kind of move in and give technical assistance and
    facilitate. I am not sure that has always worked out that way.
    I would certainly be ready and willing to, on behalf of the
    Department, review any concerns that could be addressed either
    through regulation or statutory changes.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici has to--he
    has another very tight commitment.
        Did you want to ask a question before I go on?
        Senator Domenici. I would really ask if I could ask two
    questions. I have to preside at a committee hearing at 10:00
    o'clock, and I will be a little late to that.
        Senator Gorton. Fine, fine. Go ahead.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.

                               new mexico drought

        Mr. Secretary, I am going to submit some questions to you
    with reference to the drought in the State of New Mexico, which
    will essentially be asking you if you can make sure there is a
    coordination of all of the Federal agencies, some under you, as
    to what might be done.
        We are--we are clearly--I do not know if you know this, but
    we are destined this year to have the worst drought we have
    ever had. Our rivers are going to run dry, and a lot of things
    are going to happen that are very, very bad. I will ask you
    about that in detail.
        But now I want to raise an issue that is related to the
    drought and share it with you with reference to the Endangered
    Species Law, and I think you are aware of this.
        Mr. Secretary, New Mexico, like Arizona, is a very arid
    State. Folks here in the Beltway are primarily unaware of the
    critical needs for water out there in the West. We are very
    grateful that you come from out there and you know about these
    needs.
        With the lack of snow pack and precipitation in New Mexico,
    we are going to have a drought. In fact, parts of the Rio
    Grande River which you are familiar with, which historically
    has gone dry at various times, may dry up as early as this
    week, believe it or not.

                         endangered species water needs

        The traditional stresses of water users are only made more
    difficult by litigation regarding the needs for the silver
    minnow endangered species. A recent notice of intent to sue by
    the Forest Guardians and others--that is an entity in New
    Mexico--threatened to force the release of stored water in any
    of Heron, El Vado, Abiquiu, and Cochiti Reservoirs to
    maintain--quote, ``to maintain the riparian habitat necessarily
    for the survival,'' of the silver minnow and the willow
    flycatcher.
        I am concerned about water necessary for the survival of
    New Mexico, our cities which use that water, our irrigators
    which have--as you know, under our water system, they have
    primacy as per the time they applied it to the ground, and they
    own much of that water.
        In the lawsuit which sought to force immediate critical
    habitat designation, you, as the Secretary of Interior, in the
    lawsuit which I will make available to you, you argued that the
    Department did not have the data necessary to determine water
    amounts needed for the fish.
        Fish and Wildlife Service Director Rappaport-Clark stated
    in an affidavit that: The Service must comply with NEPA
    requirements and perform an economical analysis of the impacts.
    The EIS would likely be needed which would require more time
    for the habitat designation. The Environmental--the ESA
    requires that the Service, when designating critical habitat,
    take into consideration the economic impacts of specifying any
    particular area as critical.
        I wonder if you would share with the committee, as soon as
    you can, answers to the following questions, and if you could
    answer them right now, it would be very helpful.
        Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to. I would be happy
    to.
        Senator Domenici. Without scientific data available for the
    minnow, water needs, nor reliable economic analysis, will not
    the Department need additional time to follow through and find
    out what the needs are? You have stated that in the lawsuit,
    but would you tell the committee if that is the case?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, Senator, if I may----
        Senator Domenici. Please.
        Secretary Babbitt [continuing]. I would like to step back
    and frame this issue and then specifically answer your
    question.
        Senator Domenici. Sure.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not think it is any secret
    that we have not had much luck in our relationship in finding
    common ground in New Mexico.
        Senator Domenici. No.
        Secretary Babbitt. But this is another tough problem being
    served up, and let me just say that notwithstanding our
    failures in the past, I intend to do everything I can to see if
    we can work our way through this.
        Now, let me say this also: I believe that our failure to
    work out a reasonable relationship is in some ways due to the
    underlying fact that in New Mexico, more than any other western
    State, including Alaska, Colorado, Montana and Washington,
    these issues are characterized by intransigence on both sides.
        I have never worked in an environment in which the natural
    resource users have been so rigid and inflexible; and I would
    say exactly the same thing of the environmental groups. Now, it
    is in that context that we must deal with this problem.

                  mandated use of critical habitat designation

        I have voiced my concerns about the way that we are
    mandated to use the designation of critical habitat under the
    Endangered Species Act. It does not work. It does not produce
    good results. It should be modified, because the courts are
    driving us to front-end determinations which, more properly,
    should be incorporated in recovery plans at the back end when
    we, in fact, have the information.
        Now, the courts have laid out a set of case decisions here
    that have put us in a straitjacket. They are not going to give
    us the kind of time we need because the act does not allow it.
    So that is just the bottom line.
        Do we need more time? Yes. But the Endangered Species Act
    does not give it to us. The courts do not give it to us. We are
    going to proceed with declaring critical habitat. I would
    prefer not to. It is not productive. It is incendiary, and it
    will be in this case.
        Now, finally, let me say, and then I will back off, that I
    believe that there are solutions available here. It is going to
    take some movement by those middle ground irrigation districts.
    They do not have a reputation for water use efficiency. There
    are many ways, I believe, that we could work something out.
    They have not shown the flexibility that we have found in other
    places, like in Eastern Washington, in Colorado, and elsewhere.
        The environmentalists may, in fact, be making--not ``may,
    in fact,'' but are, in fact, making some unreasonable demands
    about their version of what the hydrology of the Rio Grande
    Valley ought to be like.
        I would like to continue attempting the work. I have talked
    with the Bureau of Reclamation. I believe we have some water
    resources that are going to allow us to stagger through this
    season, with a little bit of flexibility.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        I know I used a lot of the committee's time.
        But I compliment you on your statement, and I--while I do
    not necessarily agree with your characterization of my fellow
    New Mexicans as being intransigent and the worst in America, as
    you have just phrased it, but--but I do believe that something
    is terribly bad in the way the courts are handling this
    situation because you have to close down a river to users
    without knowing what the habitat--what the water is needed for
    the--what water is needed for the endangered species.
        It is an impossibility. Maybe we could fix that here. It
    probably would bring the world down on our necks, even if we
    tried to do what he suggested. But we ought to think about
    that.

                                  water rights

        Let me make sure that everybody understands the seriousness
    of this problem. I grew up within eight blocks of this river.
    For many years of my younger days, I used to walk to this
    river, and many times it was dry.
        So for those who are used to rivers in your State or in
    Alaska that run all year long and were having arguments about
    salmon fish habitat, we do not have that. We have a river that,
    for much of the time, does not have any water in it.
        On the other hand, we built storage places that make it
    better now. We do have more water, and we have a different
    water system than most of you. Our water system is based upon:
    The first one to use it and apply it to a beneficial use owns
    it, and they own it as of the date they did it. They are
    valuable; you can sell those rights.
        Now, the problem we have is that the endangered species
    comes along with litigants who know how to use the courts, and
    they say, regardless of those water rights, you have to save
    the fish, the minnow.
        Now, the minnows have survived, I believe, during eras that
    I have told you about. When there is no water running in the
    river, they have survived in some other place in the river
    where there is water.
        Now what we have is a drought and rivers that do not always
    run wet, and we have at the worst possible time a lawsuit
    against him and his Department saying, ``Create an endangered
    species, Mr. Judge,'' and now ordering them to try to get water
    out of the reclamation projects, even if they have to dump our
    lakes that are there for irrigation purposes and other things,
    to save the minnow.
        Now, that is a very frustrating position for a State to be
    in, and for a Senator, when the Endangered Species Act is a
    national law. I do not know whether we want them to go to court
    and see if they really have water rights under the Endangered
    Species Law.
        That is a nice question. Everybody has been kind of dancing
    around it, except for a couple of courts--you could guess
    where--from California, California Circuit. They have kind of
    ruled that they have water rights even though they are not part
    of New Mexico's water ambiance at all.
        The Secretary is indicating that perhaps people have been
    intransigent regarding their water rights. I can tell you they
    may have been. But if you were under the gun all of the time
    about whether you are going to have enough water even though
    you own it, you would be kind of nervous about sharing it with
    anybody.
        I think that is kind of what happened, and then put on the
    800,000-population city which gets its water from an
    underground aquifer that is fed by this river, and they own a
    lot of water in order for their future, and you have a real
    tough situation. So I may need the Senators' assistance.
        But I will tell you for now, Mr. Secretary, I hope you are
    not alluding, in terms of intransigence, to your and my
    difficulties earlier in your Secretarial term. They are there,
    and they are acknowledged, and they will kind of be wounds for
    a long time on both of us.
        But this is a new ball game with a new problem, and I
    clearly intend to work with you if you will work with me to see
    if we can find a way to get through this on a temporary basis
    until we can fix it up in some permanent manner.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Senator, would you yield just for 1
    minute?
        Senator Domenici. I am finished. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. My friend, I think that is the most
    enlightened statement about the Endangered Species Act that I
    have heard from any administration official since that act was
    passed, and I was here when it passed. I am going to get a copy
    of that, and I do believe that we can work on that basis.
        The one thing that I was going to say to the Senator from
    New Mexico, though, is if the collision is worse in his State
    than it is in mine, do you wear armor when you go into New
    Mexico? [Laughter.]
        Senator Domenici. Well, that is why I think he is
    exaggerating. Your State is the bad State. [Laughter.]
        Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield to me just--I have
    a committee to chair, too.
        Mr. Secretary, just two short things. I do not want to take
    much time, because I have to go. And I know we are holding up
    the people who have been here before me.

                               north star project

        But the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone against the
    recommendations of the EPA, the Coast Guard, the Corps of
    Engineers, and the State and local governments on the North
    Star project, which was the one possibility of substantial
    employment in my State this summer.
        I am sure we all know, because of the low oil price, our
    economy is screeching to a halt. I would urge you to see if
    there is any way that we can avoid the litigation that is
    obviously going to come if we cannot resolve this issue.
        It has gone back to the Corps of Engineers now, as I
    understand it, to consider the objections of the Fish and
    Wildlife Service. To my knowledge, they are the only agency,
    State, Federal, or local, that objected to this project. It was
    substantially worked out with EPA and the Corps, but now the
    Fish and Wildlife Service has intervened.
        I am not asking you for a commitment now. I am just asking
    you to review it and see if there is any way that it can be
    resolved.

                      national petroleum reserve of alaska

        My question is on the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska.
    There are bids scheduled for May 5. We have an enormous merger
    coming now between BP and ARCO. It will be a subject for
    continual review by the Federal Trade Commission, and others,
    including our State. Other States are involved in it too.
        I have looked into it now. The proponents of that merger
    are each bidding under conditions that have been approved by
    the FTC. They are not merged yet. But I hear that there may be,
    because of the merger, some inclination on the part of your
    Department to delay those bids. Now, this is another area of
    substantial interest to independent oil people in Alaska. The
    bid areas are close enough to the pipeline that transportation
    is available.
        Is there any truth to the rumor that you might postpone the
    May 5 bid?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, this is the first I have heard
    of it. And unless there are some facts that I do not know, the
    answer is it is going to happen on May 5.
        Senator Stevens. Good. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        Senator Gorton. Well, Senator Campbell, you have been very
    generous. But we are going to----
        Senator Campbell. Does that give me an extra 5 minutes?
        Actually, I came in today for this hearing with the
    intention of being quiet, refined, and civil. And Senator
    Domenici started the momentum going. So the heck with it, I
    guess I will just have to pile on too. [Laughter.]
        He brought up something dear to my heart, and that is what
    I think flies in the face of common sense. That is how we
    administer the Endangered Species Act. I listened to you very
    carefully, and I have to take at least some exception about the
    water people, and particularly ranchers, are somewhat
    intransigent.
        I have to tell you that in my part of the county the San
    Juan National Forest is right next to where we live. There is a
    natural migration, as an example, back in that area of mountain
    lions. Ranchers worry about that a little bit. There have been
    some attacks on people jogging, as you know, in Colorado. Yet I
    do not know one single rancher that is really upset about the
    increase in mountain lions in our area. They just accept it.
        Even though some of them lose sheep, they lose animals some
    times, they sort of accept that. But that is a natural
    migration. They are coming back in.

                                 canadian lynx

        Now, let me compare that to the relocation of the Canadian
    lynx that are being put in the San Juan National Forest. I do
    not know if you have been following the press, but I think
    there have been about 8 or 10 put in there now. Of that number,
    5 have died. They have starved to death.
        The Fish and Wildlife were told by ranchers that since
    these lynx live primarily on snowshoe hares--there are not very
    many of them down there. There are not very many of those kinds
    of rabbits. They have done autopsies on these cats, because
    they have collars on them, and they have found that they all
    starved. Only one of them caught a rabbit.
        A couple of them had caught squirrels. And, in fact, one of
    them had gotten into it with a coyote and had part of the
    remains of a coyote inside of him.
        To me, when you relocate animals by force it is a real
    mixed bag. I do not know what it is costing. I remember hearing
    that to relocate the wolves up in Senator Burns' country it was
    about $100,000 a wolf. So I would imagine the cats are costing
    about the same amount.
        What kind of common sense is it to gather up these cats in
    Canada, put them in an area they are unfamiliar with and then
    watch them starve to death? In fact, even some of the
    environmental groups and the animal rights groups are calling
    it sentences of death to these cats.
        I do not know where we are going with that. But when we did
    one hearing with the Forest Service, in committee, I asked them
    is it going to endanger any of our logging sales. And they told
    me 14 sales had been canceled since the introduction of these
    cats.
        What we are obviously worried about is the cats are being
    put in there by force, relocating them. They are dying. Is
    there a chance of them then being put on the threatened or
    endangered list which would further endanger our sales of
    timber which results in less payments for the counties that
    need that money?
        Could you reflect on these cats a little bit? Then we will
    talk about mice.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the lynx project is a project
    undertaken, to the best of my knowledge, in the exclusive
    control of the sovereign State of Colorado.
        Senator Campbell. Say that again.
        Secretary Babbitt. It is a Colorado project.
        Senator Campbell. Yes. It is a Colorado project. But is it
    not being administered by the Fish and Wildlife?
        Secretary Babbitt. They may be cooperating, but it is not
    our project and it is not mandated by Federal law.

                         preble's meadow jumping mouse

        Senator Campbell. I am getting some mail from the Town of
    Castle Rock, that it planned to build a new center for a police
    department, a commissioner's office, and so on. They tell us
    that they cannot do it because since the Preble's meadow
    jumping mouse have been put on the threatened list on the front
    range, that it is just holding up literally any building.
        Yet, to my knowledge, that was not put on with any
    scientific proof about how few there are. It was put on simply
    because they do not see them around much. Would you comment on
    that?
        Secretary Babbitt. Sure. It was put on the list as a result
    of an adequate and thorough scientific effort. It was listed
    properly. I went out there and stood up with the Governor and
    said the Endangered Species Act is working. What the listing of
    this mouse is about is the destruction of riparian areas on the
    front range.
        There is no need to develop on the front range by
    destroying wetlands. I believe that most people in Colorado and
    in the Denver area understand that.
        This is not a moratorium on development or expansion. It is
    an application of the Endangered Species Act that I think is,
    first, scientifically valid; second, in the best interests of
    Colorado, its citizens, and its developers; and, third, that is
    and will continue to be acknowledged by most planners and
    developers on the front range.
        Now, with respect to the Castle Rock issue, I believe that
    has been resolved. But it is a cautionary incident about the
    need to be careful about locating in wetlands. There are not
    that many wetlands on the high plains and the Colorado front.
    This listing affects, I would guess, a few percent of the land
    in the Denver area--in the front range at the very most.
        Senator Campbell. OK. I will not belabor that.

                               indian trust fund

        In your presentation you mentioned the Indian Trust Fund
    appropriation of $50 million. The primary use of that money, is
    that going to be for staffing to try to straighten out those
    records?
        Secretary Babbitt. It is going to be for compliance with
    court ordered discovery and production.
        Senator Campbell. I imagine compliance is going to mean
    that you are going to have to hire a bunch of people to be able
    to do the compliance. After you comply with it, what then
    happens? Do they remain as permanent employees or what?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the answer is I cannot tell
    you. But it does not necessarily follow.
        Senator Campbell. OK. Thank you.

                                animas-la plata

        Maybe the last comment too is on the Animas-LaPlata. We
    have talked about that over the years.
        Could you tell the committee what the current status of
    negotiations are between the tribes and the Department on
    fulfilling what they call Animas-LaPlata, light, ultra light,
    extra light and all of those?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, once again I take
    responsibility and paternity for ultra light. That was a
    proposal that I personally went out and made in response to the
    requests of the Colorado delegation that we try to work
    something out. We have laid a proposal on the table. I believe
    that for----
        Senator Campbell. Are you getting any closer to an
    agreement with the tribes and the water users?
        Secretary Babbitt. The tribes, I believe, are quite
    affirmative. We have some remaining issues with the water
    users, and I believe that we are making some progress.
        In the spirit of candor which is pervading this hearing,
    let me say this. I believe that those negotiations are flagging
    from time to time because of the perception by some parties
    that they can end run the process and go back to the old time
    proposal directly in the U.S. Congress.
        Senator, if you were to go out there and say to them I want
    you to close on a mutually acceptable deal, it would get done
    as long as they think they still have a chance, the various
    groups. Mr. Chairman, you can see that I have been here 7 years
    and am a lame duck. I guess lame duckery tends to sort of
    inspire reckless candor. [Laughter.]
        Senator Campbell. Well, get that water project built and we
    will have a place for your retirement as a duck.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, it will be built.
        Senator Campbell. Well, I do not want to take any more
    time, but I do want to tell you that I have told folks out
    there, including the water users, I am not going to have any
    more to do with it until they reach some kind of an agreement
    and they have it signed in iron clad terms with the Department
    and the administration.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if you do that I am confident
    that we can get a project.
        Senator Campbell. I have told them that.
        Secretary Babbitt. OK.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming down this
    morning.

                                  otter creek

        I want to ask a question with regard to Otter Creek. Have
    you made a counter proposal to the State of Montana for the $10
    million worth of coal?
        Secretary Babbitt. I have spoken directly with the Governor
    and shown him a map and said I would be ready and willing to
    discuss alternative mineral right deals.
        Senator Burns. He has those proposals in his hand.
        Secretary Babbitt. He has written me a letter saying that
    he does not want to negotiate.
        Senator Burns. Where do we go from here then?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, the law, as I read it, says that
    in 2001 if we have not reached a deal the default provision
    will be conveyance of the Otter Creek property.
        We are opposed to that. I believe that the Otter Creek
    property is not a good site for mineral development. I stated
    that up front. It should be kept from coal production and put
    into other uses. We are opposed to giving that property. If we
    do not have an agreement by 2001, and Congress does not respond
    to our request to amend the law, there is a default provision.
        Senator Burns. What do you think it should be used for?
        Secretary Babbitt. I believe that the Otter Creek area
    should--that the BLM property there should be administered, in
    consultation with the community, for multiple uses. The problem
    with coal mining is it is an exclusive use. The other multiple
    uses are gone once you start scraping up coal.
        Senator Burns. Do you look in the reclamation areas that
    are not too far from those leases? Are they back into multiple
    use now?
        Secretary Babbitt. I have seen some very nice reclamation
    in Montana. There is no question about it. Up in the Powder
    River Basin and in those areas it is quite appropriate.
        We have, in fact, offered Montana a variety of choices up
    in those areas, because coal mining is very appropriate.
        Senator Burns. This is compliant coal and sought after by
    the power companies throughout the United States so they can
    get in compliance with the Clean Air Act. With the ability to
    reclaim, and to even make the land more productive than before
    the mining took place, I fail to see the reasoning why you
    would just seal it off. Is there something else that we do not
    know about?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, there are a variety of mineral
    leasing studies and land use plans. In all of those, the ones
    that have been done over the last 20 or 30 years, is one
    assumption.
        That is that we should mine these coal resources in an
    orderly way across the landscape rather than hopping, skipping,
    and jumping across a lot of areas that have many other values.
    There is plenty of room on BLM land.
        Senator Burns. When was your last coal sale off of BLM?
        Secretary Babbitt. I would have to look that up and get
    back to you.
        Senator Burns. I think it has been about 25 or 30 years.
        Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to get back to you.
    There is no lack of coal mining on BLM land. I will tell you
    that.
        Senator Burns. Well, we are looking at a way to fix this,
    because a little deal was struck with Congress and with this
    administration on that coal mine up there. Now we are finding
    that the administration wants to backpedal on the deal. I find
    that very hard to accept, even with your statement supporting
    multiple use, that the transfer has not been made.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, we oppose the transfer. We will
    comply with the law and seek to change it.

                            off-stream storage sites

        Senator Burns. In light of the problems that they are
    having in New Mexico with the Endangered Species Act, and
    looking at the face of a drought, should we be about our way in
    developing new off-stream storage sites?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, it entirely depends. I mean,
    that is what Animas-LaPlata is, and we are developing. But I
    would say that, west wide, what we should be doing is making
    more efficient use of the water as the first alternative.
        Senator Burns. You do not think we should be supplying any
    more diversions for storage?
        Secretary Babbitt. That is not what I said. I said that we
    are working on the Animas-LaPlata Project. We have looked at a
    variety of projects in Montana in connection with the Rocky
    Boys water settlement and are prepared to do so. We have not
    ruled it out.
        I do think, as Senator Gorton is aware, that there are some
    places in the west where dams should come down.
        Senator Burns. I am not talking about damming. I am talking
    about diversion for storage. Not damming any stream, not any
    live stream. In other words, if this water storage increases
    and enhances our in-stream flow and creates habitat and other
    wetlands, why are we not doing that?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, we are.
        Senator Burns. Where?
        Secretary Babbitt. Animas-LaPlata.
        Senator Burns. One in the whole west?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, I would be happy to get you a list
    of all of the issues that we are looking at that relate to off-
    stream storage.
        [The information follows:]
                               Off-Stream Storage
        The Bureau of Reclamation has occasionally developed off-stream
    storage as a feature of its projects. Currently, Animas-La Plata is the
    only project for which Reclamation is actively planning an off-stream
    storage facility. In addition, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, in which
    Reclamation is participating, is evaluating a number of potential off-
    stream storage sites.

                                george w. beaver

        Senator Burns. What did we do with George W. Beaver?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, I am afraid that I have never
    heard of George W. Beaver.
        Senator Burns. Well, the little beaver that chewed down
    your cherry trees.
        Secretary Babbitt. The beaver who chewed down the cherry
    trees. Well, let me say Mrs. Chenoweth has filed a petition to
    list that beaver as a geographical sub-area. As you know, I
    give equal respect to all requests from all 535 members of the
    U.S. Congress.
        So the answer is that a petition has been filed under the
    Endangered Species Act, and it will be accorded full and
    careful consideration.
        Senator Burns. Going on to some way to control the
    population, would you consider some wolves down there?
    [Laughter.]
        Secretary Babbitt. The wolves, I must say, are doing
    terrific.
        Senator Burns. They really are. They are eating very well.
        Secretary Babbitt. They are indeed. It is great.
        Senator Burns. Our cattle.
        Secretary Babbitt. Elk.
        Senator Burns. That too. They are doing very well.

                          grizzly bear reintroduction

        Tell me about your plans for the reintroduction of the
    grizzly back into the Bitterroot-Selway.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the same answer as last year. I
    do not mean to be disrespectful, but we have discussed this
    before. There is a reintroduction plan, and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service proposes to go forward subject to the will of
    the U.S. Congress.
        Senator Burns. Without any----
        Senator Campbell. Will the Senator yield just for a moment?
        Senator Burns. Yes.
        Senator Campbell. Mr. Secretary, if you--maybe you do not
    have the answer to this, but if you reintroduce grizzlies into
    an area and somebody gets injured or killed by that grizzly is
    the Federal Government liable?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, it depends.
        Senator Burns. On what?
        Secretary Babbitt. The laws of negligence and the laws
    which imply a duty of reasonable care in administering----
        Senator Campbell. If a person is just out there walking
    around and a grizzly attacked him and hurt him, then the
    Government could be liable. But if the person was aggravating
    the bear, then maybe you couldn't. Is that kind of----
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, that is kind of the question that
    I pose to my son over the dinner table as he heads off to law
    school. That is what the legal profession prospers on--posing
    those kinds of questions to judges.
        Senator Burns. Who recommended that profession to that
    young man? [Laughter.]
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Babbitt. I know I have failed in my
    responsibility as a father.
        Senator Burns. Well, I think there could be some negligent
    abuse here.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not----
        Senator Burns. But the reintroduction of the bear though
    finds very little local support up there. I know we have gone
    through some of these hearings. If I thought it was good for
    the bear then that would be fine. But I am not really sure it
    is good for either the bear or the people that live there.
        I want to go back--we have more mountain lions than we have
    ever had. We have more predators now, Mr. Secretary. When you
    can take pictures in an ordinary little homegrown video camera
    of wolves packing off your calves and your sheep, and they lay
    out there on that little flat across the creek from a guy's
    cabin and lambing barn just waiting for another calf to drop, I
    do not know how we deal with this.
        I do not know how we deal with this, but it has a profound
    effect on how we make a living in that particular area of my
    State. I find nobody that is very sensitive to that. I guess I
    am just making an appeal that we cannot end up--like, when I
    first went to Montana and went through Yellowstone Park. There
    were a lot of bears that stood alongside the road, and a
    gathering of cars, they would take pictures. They would toss
    the bear a hamburger.
        Today there aren't as many bear jams. But I do not want to
    end up being that bear, waiting for some person to drive along
    and throw me a hamburger every now and again.
        We have got to have some way to make a living. I do not
    find understanding of that fact prevalent in the Department
    right now. This delay on the coal is a cumulative thing, let us
    put it that way, that makes us very nervous. For your salute
    out there we may provide it. Who knows. But I want somebody in
    the Department, in your Department, to become sensitive to the
    people who live there.

                  rock creek parkway telecommunications tower

        Now, you have denied a placement of a tower for telephone,
    cell phones, on Rock Creek Parkway. Is that true?
        Secretary Babbitt. It is my understanding that the National
    Capital Planning Commission denied that license.
        Senator Burns. Well, but you had a--you played a role in
    that.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I must, in all seriousness----
        Senator Burns. Well, not you personally but your
    Department.
        Secretary Babbitt. Let me finish, because this town is a
    pretty contentious, suspicious place these days.
        I have, after much deliberation and consultation with my
    solicitor, recused myself from any consideration of cell phone
    towers on public lands of any kind. I respectfully decline to
    discuss that in any way.
        Senator Burns. Well, I just want to----
        Secretary Babbitt. I will refer you to somebody in the
    Department who can.
        Senator Burns. OK. We are going to pass an enhanced 911
    bill this year which allows those folks making emergency calls,
    911 calls from cell phones, to be automatically located. I am
    wondering if the people understand what they have done when you
    deny a tower site when it comes to public safety and under
    those kinds of conditions.
        So it is just not in the west. It is also here in
    Washington, D.C. I want to make that very clear that we think
    that public safety and emergency tools for the American people,
    if it is available, is very, very important. That tower would
    be a part of that grid that locates 911 calls, emergency calls.
        So we will keep taking care of those wolves as we best know
    how, but I would like to see a little more sensitivity out of
    the Department of Interior to people, and because I do not have
    very many wolves that vote.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Cochran.

                     commendation to park service employees

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, one of the
    things that I enjoy doing very much when I am out driving
    around my State or in other States is stopping at National Park
    Service facilities and looking at the exhibits and listening to
    the Park Service officers talking about the historical
    significance of the place, whatever it is, whether it is a
    Civil War battle site or George Washington's home place in
    Virginia. I must say that I think that we owe words of
    commendation to those who make those facilities a pleasure to
    visit through their patience and their thoughtful treatment of
    visitors.
        My experience--and they did not know I was a U.S. Senator--
    I try not to let them know that while I listen and ask
    questions along with the others who are there. I have really
    been impressed, and maybe in recent years more so than in the
    past, with the quality of the people and their dedication and
    their hard work who I encounter in these stops at these sites.
        I pass that on. I know you do this sort of thing all of the
    time, but they know who you are and they are very nice to you.
    They don't have any idea who I am. Occasionally I will sign the
    book, but I try to do it as I am leaving so I am gone by the
    time they say my gosh, that was a U.S. Senator.
        In my home State, for example, you have got some really
    outstanding leadership at the Vicksburg National Military Park.
    Terry Winchel is the historian, and he does a wonderful job on
    tours and just in making sure people appreciate the history
    that surrounds the Vicksburg National Military Park. The park
    superintendent, Bill Nichols, also comes to mind.
        Recently, I had an opportunity to be in Vicksburg for the
    rededication of monuments to two of the founding commissioners
    of that national military park, one of whom was a former
    Confederate general, Steven D. Lee, from Columbus, MS; the
    other Gen. William Rigby, a Union general who shared the
    responsibility for administering that park for its first 30
    years of its existence.
        But the whole point is, both of these Park Service
    officials gave talks at the ceremonies and they were very
    impressive. Everyone who attended enjoyed this event very, very
    much. I did not make a speech, but I listened. So I pass on
    those words of commendation to those individuals. There are
    many others I could single out.

                       natchez trace parkway maintenance

        We also have resources under the jurisdiction of the
    National Park Service in our State that need more attention in
    terms of maintenance and upkeep, I know this is true all over
    the country. But I worry about the deteriorating condition of
    the Natchez Trace Parkway, for example.
        I am told that it takes resurfacing about every 20 years of
    a parkway such as the Natchez Trace Parkway to maintain it in a
    safe and sound condition, and that during the last 20 years
    only 41 miles of the parkway in our State have been resurfaced.
        This parkway is almost 500 miles along. Of course, it goes
    through Alabama and Tennessee as well as Mississippi. I wonder
    if you could inquire of the Park Service people or your budget
    officer whether or not you have requested in this budget any
    funds for resurfacing and maintenance of the Natchez Trace
    Parkway and whether or not that will be enough to maintain that
    parkway in a safe condition for those who are traveling it.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think you are going to see
    some considerable progress there. The reason is that in the
    Schuster Transportation bill last year we got a--with the help
    of Senator Thomas and others of you, we got a significant bump
    up for road maintenance for the National Park System. That is
    really where we have to look. It is not in this budget but in
    the Transportation budget. I think we got an extra $60 million.
        I cannot promise all of it for the Natchez Trace, but I
    hear you and I think we will have some coming.
        Senator Cochran. I am aware that in the TEA-21 bill there
    is an increase in funding for what is called Federal Lands
    Highway Programs and you do have access to those new funds. I
    hope you will undertake to allocate whatever is needed to the
    Natchez Trace Parkway.
        I am sure others will compete for those funds too. You are
    going to have to set up priorities. I just hope you will take a
    careful look at the past neglect of resurfacing at the Natchez
    Trace Parkway and take that into account as you assign
    priorities.

                      lower mississippi river 10-year plan

        There is one other concern that I want to raise, and that
    is something called the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 10-
    year plan for the lower Mississippi River. One thing that I
    want to ask is whether or not there is such a plan and what
    does it entail?
        It would be good if we could include in the record--and I
    know you do not have all of this in front of you right now--
    some explanation of this 10-year plan for the lower Mississippi
    River. There are some, particularly those who live alongside
    the river, who are worried about what new Federal regulations
    may be imposed on them and the lands that they own all of a
    sudden without much notice or opportunity to discuss or hear
    about these plans.
        One other question that I would like to have answered for
    the record is whether any additional legal authorization is
    planned to be requested of the Congress, or does authorization
    exist already for the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a
    plan that would restrict the use of lands along the Mississippi
    River?
        If so, to what extent can we expect a plan to provide new
    regulations? What funding will be needed to carry out this
    plan? These are questions that I hope can be answered for the
    record.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to provide
    detail. Just a very brief rejoinder. But to the extent that
    there is a 10-year plan, it would have to be carried out within
    the existing organic laws of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        So I do not anticipate as a general matter that there would
    be any land use restrictions unless they were specific
    applications of the Endangered Species Act or something else.
        With regard to the lower Mississippi River, let me just
    phase out of this by saying I believe the day is coming for an
    urgent look by the U.S. Congress at the lower Mississippi
    River. The delta and the wetlands in Louisiana are simply
    disappearing. The legislation that has been passed and the
    funding that is available has really been just kind of Band-
    Aids.
        Obviously those issues relate to the management and
    operation of the river all of the way up through Mississippi as
    well.
        [The information follows:]
                      Lower Mississippi River 10-Year Plan
        A 10-Year Plan for the Lower Mississippi River was developed by the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Lower Mississippi River ecosystem team to
    identify a course of action for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    efforts for conserving and managing what is considered the Nation's
    largest wetland ecosystem. The Plan will allow the Service to integrate
    diverse program activities on an ecosystem basis and thus more
    effectively identify actions needed to address the decline of critical
    fish and wildlife resources, including the restoration of federal trust
    species, in the Lower Mississippi River basin. The planned actions
    will: (1) protect and manage National Wildlife Refuge units and
    National Fish Hatchery units; (2) maintain viable populations of native
    fish and wildlife species; (3) provide for migratory bird habitat; (4)
    accelerate coastal habitat conservation and restoration; (5) restore
    and manage floodplain fisheries; and (6) increase public awareness and
    outreach.
        The Plan does not call for additional federal regulations to be
    placed upon the users of the River or those who live within its basin.
    No new legal authorization is required to fully implement the Plan.
    Current legislative authorities for the Service identifies
    responsibilities for the protection and conservation of fish and
    wildlife resources.
        The Service has already achieved significant accomplishments in the
    restoration of fish and wildlife resources in the Lower Mississippi
    River Valley. In fiscal year 1999, restoration and enhancement efforts
    included the rehabilitation of: 4,550 acres of moist soil habitat,
    3,960 acres of wading/shorebird habitat, 36,700 acres of fall/winter
    water on agricultural lands, 5,000 acres of forested habitat, 4,150
    acres of marsh, and 125 acres of native grassland. Over 50 agreements
    with Government and nongovernment partners were initiated. Working with
    the Agriculture Department's Natural Resource Conservation Service over
    12,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods were planted and Service personnel
    assisted with conservation planning for over 30,000 acres in the
    Wetlands Reserve Program. Over 40,000 paddlefish were tagged and
    released in the Lower Mississippi River. Efforts were initiated to
    restore riparian/wildlife corridors and nonpoint source pollution
    reduction projects on major Lower Mississippi River tributaries. The
    Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan and the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee
    continue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to cooperatively
    utilize Geographic Information System technology to cost effectively
    develop and implement natural resource planning efforts.

        Senator Cochran. Let me say that in the case of Louisiana,
    most of that is marshland. That has been a big problem for a
    long time and continues to be probably the most significant
    wetlands loss problem in the country.
        I am going over after I leave here to make some remarks at
    something called Earth Day celebration on the Mall and talk
    about what is being done in agriculture to try to ensure that
    agriculture practices are compatible with our environmental
    concerns.
        I plan to point out that my State of Mississippi has made
    the most significant strides in restoring wildlife habitat and
    wetlands by using the Wetlands Reserve Program and other
    programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. We
    are very anxious to do more to help ensure that we protect
    wetlands in our State.
        We are doing that voluntarily, so I do not know what this
    Mississippi River plan is going to do to try to improve upon
    the progress that is already being made. I hope we do not have
    somebody come in and try to reinvent our efforts and change it
    in a way that will make it worse rather than better. We are
    making a lot of good progress.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will respond to you. Let me
    just say that I acknowledge your efforts and there are a lot of
    people who are very grateful for your efforts on these river
    and wetland issues, your leadership in the North American
    issues and the council, and the use of the agricultural
    programs.
        I think it is really working and that we are really
    improving enormously the habitat availability in the lower
    Mississippi River Valley. It is very impressive.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Gorton. You created a great deal of interest in
    members of the committee in your response to Senator Domenici
    in what you would like to do and the way in which you thought
    the Endangered Species Act ought to be administered and what
    you felt the courts would require you to do. As a matter of
    fact, I have never seen quite that degree of attention to one
    of your comments on the part of Senator Stevens.

                                kempthorne bill

        Were the changes that you spoke to as being desirable
    included in last year's Kempthorne bill?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, they were not.
        Senator Gorton. Are they simply ideas of your own or are
    they incorporated in or are they likely to be incorporated in
    any formal recommendation you or the administration makes to
    the Congress?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have no intention of making
    any recommendations to Congress. We labored long and hard. I
    personally put in, I would say, a couple of hundred hours in
    leading and working in drafting sessions on the Kempthorne
    bill.
        There was an enormous disappointment because the leadership
    of the Senate said no way is this bill coming to the floor. In
    the absence of a leadership commitment, there is no way that we
    can ever make any progress on this. I say that regretfully
    because we made an enormous effort and it is just not going to
    happen.
        Senator Gorton. Let me just follow up on that. Now, you
    said the specific proposal you made was not a part of the
    Kempthorne bill.
        Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.
        Senator Gorton. Was the Kempthorne bill something of which
    you approved?
        Secretary Babbitt. Yes.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I think you have given me excellent
    answers on that question. I do not know whether we could get
    such a commitment this time around. It is my own view that his
    frustration over all of the more hours than you put into it is
    the primary reason that Senator Kempthorne is our Governor. But
    many of us would like to make progress in that connection.

                               budget priorities

        You spoke to three subjects in your opening statement, Mr.
    Secretary. First, the personnel and the general administration
    of the Park Service. You did that before Senator Cochran was
    here. But I think that his tribute to many of the people who
    work for you, under the circumstances you described, is
    particularly noteworthy. It is a matter greatly to your credit
    that that kind of reaction is as broad and general as it is
    given those circumstances.
        The second subject to which you spoke, of course, was a
    Land's Legacy, the wide range of bills. The third was the
    necessity to do something with respect to the trusteeship
    relation with the Indians and the various trust properties.
        In that connection, the Land's Legacy and the earmarking of
    certain funds outside of the control of this subcommittee is a
    matter for a different committee than this one.
        I did attend the committee hearing on those matters, and I
    must say, as much as I favor many of the ideas contained in
    them, I was rather frustrated by Members of Congress, and for
    that matter the administration, who say by golly, we are not
    going to break the caps.
        We are going to save Social Security first and we are going
    to spend a billion a year on these various matters that can
    only come out of the Social Security trust fund, unless we pass
    new taxes or other policy changes, the possibility of which
    seems to me to be somewhere between remote and none.
        So I come back to the very point that Senator Byrd made.
    When we start through this whole process we are not going to
    have anything like the amount of dollars that he and I would
    like for many of your very legitimate policy recommendations.
    We are going to have to try to set up priorities.
        I agree with you with respect to the Indian Trust. I hope
    there is a way for us to find money to get that job
    accomplished, because it is one that has a beginning, a middle,
    and an end, and is not a permanent increase, one hopes, when we
    solve the problem.
        But I guess the dilemma that I am going to face with
    Senator Byrd and with everyone else is, if we do not have
    enough money, is the most important aspect of our job to keep
    going what you have, to try to see to it that we are managing
    the properties, especially in the National Park Service but
    also in your other areas of responsibility, in a way that
    brings the kind of credit and compliments that Senator Cochran
    set out even at the expense of many of the acquisitions and
    many of the new programs that not only you but most of us would
    like to engage in or to finance?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, three thoughts. I do not
    propose or advocate that we can fund the Lands Legacy program
    by offsets from the Interior budget for the reasons I have
    explained.
        Senator Gorton. Right.

                              problem with offsets

        Secretary Babbitt. We have had a strong working
    relationship over all of these years and we have affected a lot
    of important savings in our budget. But we have got this
    personnel wall and I am not prepared to support offsets that
    result in personnel cuts.
        As I look at the programs in that other remaining piece, I
    cannot do that either. We cannot cut science programs. We
    cannot start scaling back on construction and maintenance,
    which is another small portion of it. So the answer is there is
    no solution there.
        The Indian Trust Fund issue has to be done. I cannot offer
    any offsets for that. I simply cannot. Now, in previous years I
    think we have kind of dissolved this hearing by mutual pledges
    to keep looking. Of course, I offer that. I must say that the
    cupboard is, in year 7 of my tenure, really bare in terms of
    offsets.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I believe it is myself. That was the
    reason for my question. I guess I find the chairmanship of this
    subcommittee to have been a great pleasure when I was able to
    grant a large number of specific program requests from almost
    every colleague I have, all 99 of them.
        But it looks to me this year that I may have to be the
    Grinch if we are going to keep you operating in the way you
    are. I do not think you are going to find us trying to find a
    lot of this money out of further elements and your
    administration of the lands for which you are already
    responsible.
        But, inevitably that means, and especially if we try to
    find the $50 million for the Indians in this fashion, we are
    going to have an extremely tight budget on everything else. I
    take your answer to be that first things first, and first
    things are what we are doing now.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I understand. I do not want to
    step above my pay grade, but the Lands Legacy Program is in the
    context of an administration budget which I believe makes
    sense. Now I recognize the Kosovo issue. But let me just say
    now that we have reached a balance in the larger sense, in
    budget accounts, I feel quite strongly that there ought to be
    room for this Lands Legacy Program. There is, in fact, an
    enormous amount of member interest which is reflected in a
    whole variety of bills which have been filed. I recognize your
    dilemma as subcommittee members, but I do think that the debate
    must and should go beyond the confines of the traditional
    process.
        Senator Gorton. Yes. So I guess it is your view, as it is
    mine, that if we are going to engage in these ambitious new
    programs there must be another source of money for them, not
    the traditional discretionary appropriations from this
    committee out of which you have run your general operations.
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, that, in my opinion, should not
    entirely discount the process of such a distinguished
    subcommittee chairman and ranking minority member carving out a
    larger 603-B allocation.
        Senator Gorton. No. It certainly will not. We will do the
    best we possibly can.

                      recreation fee demonstration program

        A few questions on the Recreation Fee Demonstration
    Program. The Park Service especially, within the Department,
    has had some criticism for not making Fee Demonstration funds
    available for actual projects in a timely manner. Is this a
    legitimate criticism? If so, why and what is being done?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have heard some of that.
    Knowing the way we operate, I suspect that there is probably
    some truth to that.
        I guess what I should say is I will be happy to look into
    it. I do not have a better answer at this point.
        [The information follows:]
                      Recreation Fee Demonstration Program
     timeliness of approving projects funded with recreation demonstration
                                  fee receipts
        Department of the Interior position: In actuality, approval of the
    projects funded through Recreation Demonstration Fees has been as
    timely as possible given the fact that the program is new. Agencies
    have needed time to develop expenditure-approval procedures and set up
    accounting systems to manage the funds. In the two full fiscal years
    the program has been in operation (1997 and 1998), the three
    participating Interior agencies have collected over $189 million in
    Recreation Fee receipts. It takes time to plan and implement
    expenditure projects. Some of the smaller units are saving their fees
    until they have enough for sizable projects. Nevertheless, the Agencies
    are improving the rate of project accomplishment.
        The Department is working with the Interior agencies to ensure
    accountability by instituting procedures for management of the fee
    demonstration receipts, including procedures governing the approval,
    expenditure, and reporting on the projects. The Department and the
    agencies are working to streamline the approval process.
                  program coordination among the four agencies
        Department of the Interior position: It is true that the GAO's
    evaluation of the fee demo program concluded that there is a need for
    greater coordination among the four agencies involved. The Department
    plans to review Recreation Fee Demonstration sites for ensuring
    coordination wherever feasible and appropriate. Agency fee managers are
    meeting on a regular basis to discuss plans, problems, and solutions
    related to greater coordination of the program. On January 6, 1999, the
    Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget proposed an
    internal review of all fee demonstration sites throughout the
    Department to determine where coordinating and consolidating fees is
    feasible and appropriate.

                                   gao report

        Senator Gorton. A related question, of course, is that
    there are--the GAO report said that there is a lack of
    coordination among the four agencies that are involved, which
    leads to a certain degree of inefficiency. Have you examined
    that element of the GAO's concern?
        Secretary Babbitt. I have, and I think there are some
    unresolved issues there. The place where we are seeing that
    most is with the Golden Eagle Pass.
        The National Park Foundation has come in, just as an
    example on this coordination, with a study which suggests that
    if the Park Service were to sell a park system pass we could
    get tens of millions of dollars every year in purchases which
    were not made for economic reasons, but were made for saying I
    am a supporter of the National Park Service. There would be
    enormous sort of pizazz for that kind of card.
        It runs into conflict with the arrangements for the Golden
    Eagle Pass, which is a system-wide one which will never have
    the same cache, if you will. It just is not, because it is a
    public lands pass that does not carry that. I would like to get
    that sorted out.
        The other issue I think that comes up is, to the extent
    that we start wrapping too much into a pass and making it too
    broad, I think we provoke some resistance, understandable out
    west particularly, from people who say with this project we
    were not indicating our support for fees to go on public lands.
        I think we ought to be real careful to stay away from that,
    because I understand that and I agree that we should not get
    into this fee for access syndrome.
        Those are kind of the cross-currents that I do not have an
    answer to. I would like to get the Park Service one worked out.
    I think there is a lot of money there.
        Senator Gorton. Is there legislation for the program for--
    --
        Secretary Babbitt. Yes. There is legislation. I think it is
    at OMB right now, which means it will appear sometime in the
    coming century. But, seriously, I believe that there will be
    legislation out in the light of day during this calendar year.
        Senator, let me say that John has just told me the Park
    Service, anticipating your earlier question, has approved $199
    million in projects which covers fees collected through the
    first couple of months of this year. They have apparently heard
    your question.
        Senator Gorton. I believe there is also something in the
    GAO report about whether or not we should earmark as high a
    percentage of those fees for the park in which they are
    collected. On the other hand, it has always seemed to me that
    that was one of the reasons that it has the degree of public
    acceptability that it did. Do you have any comment?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would back away from that
    figure very reluctantly for the public acceptability reason and
    the bureaucratic acceptance of the program.
        We have learned in the past that if there is not a direct
    incentive in a park for people to collect fees, all of a sudden
    they do not get collected. People are shortening the hours, and
    you have more and more of those times when a sign says go
    through. So I would be cautious about changing it.

                    automated land and mineral record system

        Senator Gorton. A completely different subject. Recently,
    GAO testified that the Bureau of Land Management had spent some
    $411 million on an automated land and mineral record system
    over the course of the last 15 years, but that the software
    component of it, $67 million, has serious problems or is a
    complete failure. Can anything be salvaged? What are we going
    to do?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the $67 million is gone. It has
    been discarded. It has no value.
        I made a mistake when I came here. The ALMRS Program was
    either 2 or 3 years underway, and I briefly considered
    scrapping it. It was a big mistake not to have done it.
        Now, what is the lesson? The lesson is that we have gone
    through a period in which modernizing systems was being done by
    reference to 1960s information processing and software
    companies who were still peddling the old 1960s giant
    centralized CPU-driven systems. I regret that I did not step up
    to that and scrap it.
        Now, the remaining $400 million, $350 million or whatever
    it is, is usable and useful. It is not going to meet the
    original thing, but it consists of records which in fact are
    being converted and which are in fact in data processing
    systems which can be used.
        There is an important lesson here, and I think OMB deserves
    recognition. They have caught onto this and they have started
    to get onto the agencies. The answer is no big central,
    expensive systems. They are obsolete, and people are still
    peddling them.
        Now, if I may anticipate your next question, are we coming
    up on another one of these with the Indian Trust records? The
    answer is an adamant no. After a lot of pushing and shoving we
    have firmly established that the so-called TAAMS system is an
    off-the-shelf deal. It is totally decentralized, and I am
    absolutely confident it is going to work.
        Now, why is that? Because we went out to the oil industry
    and bought an oil industry package that these guys use for
    essentially all of the same kinds of stuff. It can be put up in
    modules. It can be operated independently. It can be hooked up.
    But there is no grand design, and I think that is the lesson.
        Senator Gorton. I hope that lesson is institutionalized in
    the Department in a way that it will survive your lame duckery.
    If you are able to accomplish that goal, you will have made a
    major contribution.

                                 indian gaming

        There has been an on-going war, obviously, over Indian
    gaming operations and compacts. You very promptly used the fact
    that Congress did not totally pass a supplemental
    appropriations bill by March 31 to issue final regulations on
    the subject. On the assumption that that supplemental
    appropriations bill passes and is signed by the President some
    time in the next month with that provision included in it, what
    will your response be?
        Secretary Babbitt. You are referring to the moratorium
    provision.
        Senator Gorton. Yes.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not think it is a good
    idea. I think it is a mistake by all of the various
    stakeholders to be advocating these kinds of moratoriums. It
    does not serve anybody's interest. Now, let me explain why.
        The reason we put those regulations out and did it so
    quickly and affirmatively is we have got to get this issue into
    the courts in the most orderly, concise way we can, because we
    do not have a majority in favor of anything in the Congress.
    The next best thing is to get it into the courts and see if
    they will give us some direction rather than just telling us
    that it is inappropriate.
        Now, in the course of structuring that litigation, it will
    be up to the Justice Department to decide whether or not to
    stay pending applications' consent to a kind of injunctive
    relief. Let me just say that we have no intention of rushing
    into the application of these regulations.
        I much prefer to say to this committee and to the Congress
    let us just try to stay together, expedite the litigation, use
    ADR to the extent we can, keep talking, and we will keep you
    apprised. A moratorium drags us back into this adversary
    relationship. It may or may not be necessary. It puts me back
    into the advocates box. You put up a moratorium and I am, I
    think, properly and inevitably driven into an adversary
    position. I do not want to be there.
        Senator Gorton. You have answered my second and most
    important question. It is not your view then that you want to
    create an irrevocable situation on the ground before our court
    has made a decision.
        Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.

                     biological resources division in usgs

        Senator Gorton. At this point in time do you consider the
    creation of the Biological Resources Division in USGS a
    success?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I absolutely do, and I am most
    grateful for your assistance in getting it.
        Senator Gorton. What role do you play in coordinating its
    activities with those of the land management agencies?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, I try to stay out of it. We
    formed, a couple of years ago, a science council inside the
    Department where the land management agencies and the GS meet
    about four times a year to try to get some togetherness going
    and to try to figure out ways to draw the line between basic
    wide-ranging science and site specific applied science. For
    example, if the North Rim Trail in the Grand Canyon has been
    washed out and is a pile of rubble, and we have some indication
    that was due to the fact that it was not located in the right
    place, it was on a fault line or whatever, before we
    reconstruct the trail we would like to get a geologist out
    there.
        They ought to have a geologist to do that in a big park. A
    BRD should not be doing that, that kind of micro although very
    important science.
        What we try to do is sort those things out and set up a
    kind of system to start moving priorities out at a BRD that
    have a lot of input from land management agencies.
        Senator Gorton. Last week we had the Forest Service and the
    Department of Agriculture in front of us, Mr. Secretary. I went
    after them on something that I think is really more your
    responsibility.

                     crown jewel mine application rejection

        It is my view that your solicitor's opinion which resulted
    in a rejection of the Crown Jewel application, whatever the
    court may ultimately say as to its legality, is clearly not the
    way in which a Government ought to treat its citizens.
        When a company or a group of companies has spent at least
    half a dozen years, maybe 8, and $80 million, has gone through
    a record of decision, has had the record of decision upheld by
    the courts, has dozens--I cannot remember the number right
    now--of permits granted, and literally is told to come in and
    pick up its permit and then the next morning is told it is not
    there because we have changed the rules, I think personally
    that we reach an ethical or a moral position that just is not
    the way that any person or any government ought to treat its
    citizens after that kind of investment. I would like your
    comments on that.
        You know, you reverse your manuals, you reverse the rules,
    you reverse what has gone on, Lord knows, I suppose for this
    entire century more or less, after the fact.
        Is there not quite a distinction between saying well, in
    the future as people start down this road here are going to
    bend the rules--but to apply it in that fashion and in a
    fashion which I understand has caused the stock value of a wide
    range of other companies engaged in mining on public lands to
    have collapsed considerably. It seems to me it would be a
    terrible way to use the powers of Government.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I appreciate your concerns.
    This is an issue which is in the courts all of the time. Does a
    ruling have retroactive or prospective application? What about
    the transition cases?
        No. 1, the existence of this issue has been no secret. It
    has been widely known in the industry. Permits have been
    granted in the past, not because there was a policy, but
    because nobody was paying any attention. I mean, it was kind of
    a failure to enforce the law, not a reinterpretation of the
    law.
        I guess I would counsel the company to look at the
    functioning of its lawyers and consider to what extent they had
    notice and should have notice, because the law, I think, is
    quite clear.
        The opinion has been out there for 18 months. But I
    understand it was perceived as a change. I would suggest it was
    not a change, but it did say, for the land management agencies,
    you have got to quit ignoring this law.
        Now, last, there are other tracks that this company can
    take. They can apply for a site lease under FLPMA. In the past,
    a number of companies have used land exchanges. That is a
    little more cumbersome. You don't get a title that way. But
    they can apply for a FLPMA land lease.
        Senator Gorton. A few minutes ago, Mr. Secretary, I leaned
    over to Senator Byrd and said one of the refreshing elements of
    having you in front of us against what we just had a week ago
    is that when you are asked a question we get an answer, whether
    we like it or not. Senator Byrd walked out of the hearing last
    week because he was not getting answers.
        I must say, you are pushing me pretty close to the edge on
    that one. I think that is a highly bureaucratic answer and that
    it does not change my view that this was an extraordinary
    unfairness. I have no way of predicting how the litigation will
    come out on this.
        I do not believe the alternative you set up to me is a
    practical alternative in the real world. I would just have to
    say it will, I suppose, ultimately be decided in the courts.
    But that really is not the way people ought to be treated by
    their Government.

                                      dams

        Where are we with respect to dams? We had an opportunity,
    you and I, last year when, reflecting back on it, a lot more
    money was going to be available than there is in this
    appropriations bill to make dramatic moves with respect to the
    Elwha in exchange for some significant protections for dams on
    the Columbia and Snake Rivers that ultimately floundered not
    over what I understood your view to be with respect to Federal
    dams but with respect to nonfederal dams that are far more
    important to the economy of the Pacific Northwest than even the
    four dams on the Snake are.
        Are we going to be able to reach any agreement that will
    allow us to go forward on the Elwha, even at a somewhat slower
    speed than we would have had when we started last year, and
    provide a degree of protection and public consent with respect
    to major decisions on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, or are we
    going to continue with an administration position that will
    allow no conditions other than those which actually state
    present law?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have given this a lot of
    thought since we had those conversations last year, and I am
    not prepared to support or advocate a linkage. I have gone to
    school on this issue a little bit.
        Just as one example, the FERC licensing of dams is
    derivative from a huge debate in earlier years in this U.S.
    Congress in which Theodore Roosevelt himself laid out the case
    for the Federal licensing and periodic relicensing of dams. It
    has worked well. I just think it is inappropriate to freeze a
    system that is working over apprehensions that I think are
    entirely unjustified.
        Now, another event that I think has crystallized my
    thinking in the last year is the emerging agreement over the
    Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in your part of the
    country. We are about ready to sign off on an agreement that is
    acceptable to all of the parties. In the context of this
    history, I just do not see the need for this and I would oppose
    it.
        Senator Gorton. That Condit Dam remark, of course, is
    exactly what we want in connection with anything else that we
    do, something that is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Of
    course, it is exactly what many of our public utility districts
    and other public entities fear is not going to be available to
    them. The simple oral assurance that nothing is going to happen
    is insufficient for them or for me.
        Secretary Babbitt. I understand, and I think we have a flat
    out difference of opinion. It can be argued both ways, but I
    believe that history and reality argue for using the existing
    system and that it has never led to an inappropriate result,
    and I do not think it is going to.

                                Salmon recovery

        Senator Gorton. Finally, none of the $100 million allocated
    for coastal salmon recovery in the Northwest is recommended by
    the administration for the Interior budget, though last year
    the $20 million that was appropriated for that purpose did come
    from the Interior budget, and there may very well be some more
    this year. Do you have any suggestions as we go through this
    process for ensuring that this money gets to the ground to
    local conservation groups and is used efficiently?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, two or three thoughts. The $20
    million in our budget last year was a tough hit for the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, because I think it can be viewed as
    having offset implications.
        There is going to be a lot of resistance, which I think is
    entirely justified, for loading this money into our budget in
    light of the conversation that we have just had here. So I
    recognize your prerogative. I urge you to go easy because that
    is the nature of the beast.
        As I listen to the debate about the Pacific Northwest, I am
    confused. We have not yet converged on a salmon recovery vision
    for the Northwest. But, with all respect, we are not going to
    get it by handing this back to the states. We are going to get
    it by some kind of convergence. So I express some skepticism,
    but without really being able to offer you an alternative
    vision. We are not there yet.
        One thing I would leave with you, and that is that I think
    that the science piece of this is one area where we ought to
    put together a coordinated effort. That ought to be relatively
    easy to do.
        Rather than handing off science money to Washington and
    Oregon Federal agencies, I think we could quite easily reach a
    kind of coordinated virtual view of how we do that. Researchers
    are good at it. Scientists know how to do it. It is a very
    small step.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, do you have anything else you
    would like to add?
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions which I
    would like to submit for the record. If the Secretary would
    provide answers I would appreciate it very much.
        Other than that, let me thank you for your typical
    courtesy. I have served on your subcommittee here for quite
    some time. I find always that you are very courteous to the
    other members. You allow them to proceed with their questions
    while you take on the heavy duty work of staying around and
    doing the rest of it by yourself, closing up the door and
    locking it, turning the lights out. I appreciate that. I just
    wanted to call attention to that in the record.
        Also, I want to say to the Secretary that I have been
    around this Hill now for 47 years. This is my 47th. Abraham was
    175 years old and Jacob was 180--no. Wait a minute.
        Abraham was 175, Isaac was 180, Jacob was 147, and Joseph
    was 110. Strom Thurmond is 96, I believe, or 95. But I have
    been around a long time. I think this is the finest Secretary
    of the Department of the Interior that I have had experience
    with. He does not always please us with his answers, but he is
    pretty forthright, even more so than most secretaries of most
    departments, may I say. You will never find one that is as
    forthright as the blade of an ax, but this secretary comes
    pretty close. I want to thank him for the good work he has
    done. [Laughter.]
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. You are welcome.
        Mr. Secretary, you are never going to get a better
    compliment than that.
        The only amendment that I might have to make to your
    remarks, Senator Byrd, is that I am afraid that it may be this
    administration that is turning out the lights, not me.

                         Additional committee questions

        Thany you very much. There will be some additional
    questions which will be submitted for your response in the
    record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
                            Departmental Management
               government performance and results act--department
        Both GAO and the Department's Inspector General have repeatedly
    reported on the lack of consistent, accurate, and reliable data from
    the Park Service and other Interior agencies on the scope and extent of
    deferred maintenance on the resources they are responsible for
    protecting. The performance plans for the Park Service, Bureau of Land
    Management, and other Interior agencies have performance goals that
    attempt to measure progress towards addressing their deferred
    maintenance needs.
        Question. What is the Department doing to ensure that the quality
    of data developed by the respective agencies will overcome the
    deficiencies it has had in the past so that useful, valid measurements
    of performance can be determined?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior and its bureaus have
    embarked on a number of initiatives to improve the quality of
    facilities management information.
        In fiscal year 1998, the Department developed standardized
    definitions to help resolve some of the inconsistencies among the ways
    annual maintenance, deferred maintenance, and capital improvement
    (construction) are reported. In addition, a set of standardized
    information was defined for describing deferred maintenance and capital
    improvement projects in the budget formulation process. These standards
    were used in the development of the fiscal year 2000 Five-Year
    Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan which has been submitted to
    the Congress. The Department also intends to begin a facilities
    condition assessment process starting in fiscal year 2000. Through this
    process we hope to validate our facilities inventory, obtain a more
    definitive measure of the magnitude of deferred maintenance throughout
    the Department, and develop facilities condition metrics. It is
    expected that the condition assessment process will take approximately
    five years to complete one full cycle on all facilities.
        In fiscal year 1999, a maintenance management system selection team
    composed of bureau representatives has been chartered to assess the
    availability and feasibility of using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
    software for facilities maintenance management within the Department.
    The team is currently evaluating the requirements of current system
    users and potential users. The software functionality needed at large,
    complex locations as well as at the many smaller, less complex
    locations is being defined. An assessment will then be made of how well
    the requirements can be satisfied by commercial software and which
    requirements will require customized software solutions. Standardized
    facilities management data elements for the Department are also being
    defined as part of this effort.
        Collectively, these efforts will provide the facilities management
    information needed to assure valid performance management.
        Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
    Department to achieve performance-based management within your agency,
    as required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. The Department has taken a number of steps over the past
    several years to move toward performance-based management and an
    orientation toward results. We have organized cross-departmental
    management groups to ensure that the Department is focused on
    performance, and we are using performance information to help guide
    management practices. For instance, the Department has instituted a
    quarterly data reporting system to track progress toward achieving our
    annual GPRA performance goals. Each bureau reports to the Department on
    a quarterly basis on each of its annual performance goals. This system
    is a source of continuous information about performance, and allows
    Departmental and bureau managers to identify areas needing additional
    management attention. The Interior Management Council, which consists
    of the Deputy Directors of Interior's bureaus and offices and
    Departmental management offices, also reviews GPRA implementation
    issues on a regular basis.
        Although the current fiscal year is the first year in which we are
    operating under a GPRA annual performance plan, we are already finding
    utility in the performance information generated through the GPRA
    process. In many cases, we have used performance information and
    projections as a meaningful factor in managing our programs. For
    example, the National Park Service has developed park-specific
    strategic plans and annual performance plans for each of its units as a
    means to set a consistent and measurable set of goals for the
    organization. In addition, we have established performance goals for a
    number of cross-cutting areas of national concern, including the South
    Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program, the Northwest Forest Plan, and
    the Wildland Fire Program. We are currently participating in a pilot
    program through the Natural Resources Performance Management Forum, a
    consortium of natural resource agency planners, to develop a more
    coordinated federal planning approach to clean water management. In
    addition, the Department is searching for ways to improve our planning
    processes and streamline our GPRA plans. The fiscal year 2000 annual
    plan contained significantly fewer goals and measures than the fiscal
    year 1999 plan. Interior plans to revise its strategic plan by March
    2000. In this revision, we plan to streamline our plans and goals even
    further.
        Question. How are your senior executives and other key managers
    being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. Building accountability for results is one of the key
    elements in successfully implementing GPRA, and Interior is taking
    steps to link individual accountability with results. For example,
    Interior's SES performance appraisal system has been closely tied to
    the goals and objectives in the Department's GPRA strategic plan. The
    Department's October 16, 1998 guidance on developing SES performance
    agreements for 1998-1999 stated, in part: ``the performance elements
    and standards included in the individual 1998-1999 SES performance
    agreements must reflect the initiatives, commitments, and goals
    included in the Department's ``Government Performance and Results Act
    Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan.'' The guidance addresses the
    need to directly link mission outcomes with the individual performance
    of the Department's senior managers. In addition, the Department is
    taking action throughout the year to build accountability. The
    Department is currently conducting GPRA review meetings with each of
    Interior's bureaus. The meetings are attended by senior managers from
    the bureaus and from the Departmental management offices. During these
    meetings, the group reviews bureau quarterly performance information
    and discusses a wide range of performance management issues.
        Many of our bureaus are also building accountability processes
    tailored to their own management systems and cultures. For example, the
    National Park Service has included GPRA performance elements in all
    performance appraisals for all park superintendents and supervisors.
    This has focused the attention of field-level managers on the goals and
    objectives that have been established for their areas of responsibility
    through the strategic planning process.
                      recreation fee demonstration program
        The Department has now been administering the recreation fee
    demonstration program for several years.
        Question. Can you describe for the Subcommittee how much revenue is
    being generated in this program for the three participating Interior
    agencies?
        Answer. In the two full fiscal years the program has been in
    operation, 1997 and 1998, the three participating Interior agencies
    have collected $189,580 thousand in rec fee demonstration receipts.
        Some criticism has been leveled at the Department, particularly the
    Park Service, for failing to make fee demonstration funds available for
    actual projects in a timely manner.
        Question. Why has this been the case?
        Answer. In actuality, approval of the projects funded through fees
    has been as timely as possible given the fact that the program is new.
    Agencies have needed time to develop expenditure-approval procedures
    and set up accounting systems. It also takes time to plan and implement
    expenditure projects. Some of the smaller units are saving their fees
    until they have enough for sizable projects. Nevertheless, the Agencies
    are improving the rate of project accomplishment.
        Question. What is the Department doing to ensure fee demo funds are
    available in a reasonable time frame, while maintaining adequate
    oversight of the program as a whole?
        Answer. The Department is working with the agencies to ensure
    accountability by instituting procedures for management of the fee
    demonstration receipts, including procedures governing the approval,
    expenditure, and reporting on the projects. The Department and the
    agencies are working to streamline the approval process.
        The GAO's evaluation of the fee demo program concluded that there
    is still insufficient coordination among the four agencies involved,
    and that this lack of coordination has in some cases resulted in
    duplicate or overlapping fee structures in areas where there are
    multiple public land units.
        Question. Do you think this is a valid criticism?
        Answer. The Department concurs that more coordination is needed.
    The Department plans to review Recreation Fee Demonstration sites for
    ensuring coordination wherever feasible and appropriate.
        Question. What is being done within the Administration to respond
    to this criticism?
        Answer. Agency fee managers are meeting on a regular basis to
    discuss plans, problems, and solutions related to greater coordination
    of the program. On January 6, 1999, the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
    Management and Budget proposed an internal review of all fee
    demonstration sites throughout the Department to determine where
    coordinating and consolidating fees is feasible and appropriate.
        The GAO also suggested that Congress may wish to consider reducing
    the amount of fee revenues that remain in the collecting unit, thereby
    increasing the amount available for other units.
        Question. What is your response to this suggestion?
        Answer. The Department appreciates the significant benefits brought
    about as a result of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, and
    recognizes that the program was established as a pilot only three years
    ago. The Department believes there may be room for improvements to the
    program, such as perhaps reducing the share of the collecting units in
    order to provide a greater share to the other units. The Department
    would like to work with the Appropriations Committees to determine the
    best approaches for improving the program.
        Question. Do you have any other observations about the fee program
    that you would like to share?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes an increase of $2.5
    million in the NPS budget for management of the Recreation Fee Program.
    This increase is critical to providing sufficient staff to ensure the
    program maintains accountability as well as timely expenditure of
    funds.
        Question. Does the Administration intend to propose specific
    legislation to permanently authorize a fee program based on the fee
    demo program?
        Answer. This is under consideration, given that the original
    program was intended to be temporary. The Department would like to work
    with the Appropriations Committees to determine the best approaches for
    permanent authorization.
                                five year plans
        The Department has submitted to the Committee a series of 5 year
    plans to address the deferred maintenance and construction backlogs of
    the three Interior land management agencies, the Geological Survey, and
    the BIA. As part of this process, the Department and the individual
    bureaus have spent considerable time in identifying the maintenance
    backlogs of those agencies based on a consistent set of definitions.
        Question. Are the 5 year plans delivered to the Subcommittee based
    upon a common set of definitions for maintenance backlog that enables
    this subcommittee to fairly judge the relative needs of these agencies?
        Answer. The 5-year plans are based on a common set of definitions
    developed by the bureaus and DOI for maintenance needs. However, the
    Department did not seek to compare the merits of individual projects
    across bureau lines because of the varied Congressionally mandated
    bureau missions that requires emphasis on different goals.
        Question. How is the Department balancing the need to establish
    uniform criteria and standards for bureau maintenance plans against the
    need to avoid adding another layer of bureaucracy or duplication to
    agency planning efforts?
        Answer. During the initial year of the first 5-year plan, both the
    bureaus and the Department were heavily involved in detailed feedback
    and reviews because of the first-time ever use of common definitions
    across the bureaus. Because this required some of the bureaus to
    redefine terms, Departmental oversight was essential in assuring
    consistent use of terms and scoring of projects among the bureaus. By
    working cooperatively with the bureaus in developing criteria and
    standards and in preparing 5-year plans, the Department is able to
    avoid duplication of effort. The bureaus nominated projects for
    inclusion in the 5-year plans.
        Question. Describe the Department's role (as opposed to individual
    bureaus) with respect to developing the 5 year plans.
        Answer. Bureaus nominated and scored projects in the 5-year plans.
    Then the Department reviewed projects for consistency with definitions
    and scores attributed to each. If an individual project did not appear
    to be consistent with definitions/weighting factors, the Department
    sent it back for reassessment/better descriptions to the bureaus and
    then re-reviewed it.
        Question. What will be the Department's role in ensuring that
    bureaus are true to their plans?
        Answer. The commitment of Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management,
    and Budget John Berry in fiscal year 1999 continues. On a project-by-
    project basis, the Department and bureaus annually will report
    completions by project after the end of the fiscal year as well as any
    changes to the project list based on (1) work already completed, (2)
    unfunded emergency work that required immediate attention, (3) changes
    resulting from unforeseen site conditions, and (4) work that no longer
    needs to be accomplished. In addition, the fiscal year 2000 request
    includes funding put in place maintenance management systems that will
    facilitate this tracking and reporting.
        The 5 year plans identify roughly $2.4 billion worth of projects,
    including, for example, $1.13 billion for the Park Service.
        Question. Based on the 5 year plan, is it now safe to say that the
    maintenance backlog for the Park Service is $1.13 billion?
        Answer. No. The five year plan represents reviewed and approved
    repair/rehabilitation and line item construction projects that have
    been identified as priorities. While the majority of these projects are
    deferred maintenance projects, they do not represent the entire
    National Park Service backlog of deferred maintenance.
        The NPS currently estimates an identified deferred maintenance
    backlog of about $3.54 billion as reported in the 1998 Chief Financial
    Officers report, including facilities, costs for housing, paved roads
    and bridges and dams. However, this total is only a conceptual cost
    estimate based on costs for similar work accomplished by the
    construction industry and past National Park Service estimates. This
    estimate was prepared without a fully defined scope of work, and
    without a complete inventory and condition assessment of the facilities
    managed by the National Park Service. Since the actual cost of
    correcting deferred maintenance cannot be known until a comprehensive
    inventory and condition assessment has been completed, and a fully
    defined scope of work has been developed, this amount is by necessity a
    very general, or Class C, estimate. In addition, this backlog includes
    only the deferred facility maintenance projects reviewed and approved
    by NPS and listed in the Project Management Information System, and
    does not include projects identified as backlog by parks but not yet
    reviewed by NPS.
        Also, this estimate is for maintenance repairs to existing
    structures as a snap shot of their current condition. It does not
    include the funding level needed in order to maintain those facilities
    at an acceptable level once their condition has been restored. Because
    this estimate is so uncertain, it is difficult to use as a measure of
    performance in addressing deferred maintenance needs. Instead, we
    intend to use our 5-year plans to monitor progress in completing
    priority construction and facility maintenance projects.
        Keeping with the Park Service, the 5-year plan includes a numeric
    rating for most of the projects included in the plan. There are a few
    exceptions, however, where projects are given a ``special'' or ``NA''
    rating. Examples of these would be the utilities repair at Glen Echo,
    rehabilitation of the Carderock Stables in the C&O Canal National
    Historic park, and construction of an Environmental and Education
    Center at Virgin Islands National Park.
        Question. Why is a numeric rating for these projects not included
    in the plan? How did such projects come to be included in the plan?
    Don't you think the scattering of such unrated projects throughout the
    plan diminishes the integrity of the plan itself?
        Answer. Not all projects in the 5-year program list competed for
    priority in the Choosing by Advantage (CBA) system. However, this
    situation is not unique to the current 5-year construction program. In
    most NPS budget requests, there are projects that are sufficiently
    compelling to NPS/DOI officials that they are selected over projects
    that competed for and received an NPS priority. The projects in the
    program marked as ``special'' or ``NA'' did not compete in the CBA
    process, but were included due to special circumstances or needs.
        An explanation for each of the projects designated as ``special''
    or ``NA'' follows:
        (1) Everglades National Park, Modify Water Delivery System. This
    project is an ongoing Administration initiative, is critical to the
    Everglades Restoration Project, and is of such size and complexity that
    it could not compete reasonably with other NPS projects in the CBA
    process.
        (2) Olympic National Park, Restore Elwha River Ecosystem. The same
    explanation as provided for the Everglades project applies to this
    project.
        (3) Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Complete Lighthouse
    Relocation. This project was initiated before the CBA process was in
    use. A policy decision was made that ongoing projects did not have to
    compete in the new CBA system. This allows projects that received
    priority consideration under the former system to be completed.
        (4) Independence National Historical Park, Complete Rehabilitation
    of Merchants Exchange Building. Like the Cape Hatteras project, this
    project was initiated in a prior year and ranked under the old system.
        (5) George Washington Memorial Parkway, Glen Echo Utilities. This
    project did not compete in the CBA process but was included because it
    presents an excellent opportunity to partner with the State and local
    government to solve major utility system problems at the park. The
    Federal share of this project will be only \1/3\ of the total project
    cost. In this case, the benefit of the sizeable match of nonfederal
    funds was determined to outweigh other criteria used in the CBA
    process.
        (6) San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, Rehabilitate
    Schooner, C.A. Thayer. This project was evaluated and ranked using the
    CBA process. It received very high ranking as a resource protection
    project. However, because of the heavy emphasis placed on health and
    safety, this project was not scheduled until fiscal year 2002. In the
    course of finalizing the fiscal year 2000 budget, NPS and Departmental
    officials determined that this resource could not wait until 2002 to
    receive attention. Also, there is a public campaign now underway by the
    park's cooperating association to raise funds to contribute to saving
    the ship. The fund-raising effort will be enhanced by demonstrating the
    Federal commitment to attain its share of the funds as soon as
    possible.
        (7) Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Carderock
    Stables. This project consists of construction of a new stable area for
    the United States Park Police (USPP) horse-mounted unit at the
    Carderock Picnic Area in Maryland. This horse mounted USPP unit patrols
    the towpath of the C&O Canal National Historical Park, and is the
    primary law enforcement presence in the park along 22 miles of towpath
    between the beginning of the canal in Georgetown and Riley's Lock in
    Seneca, Maryland. The unit was formerly staged at Glen Echo Park in
    Maryland, but needs relocation during reconstruction of the utilities
    at the park. Temporary quarters for this unit has been established at
    Edgewater Stables in Rock Creek Park for the past three years. This
    facility serves as a training center for the USPP horse mounted units
    and is currently overcrowded with the addition of the unit from Glen
    Echo. This project did not compete for priority through the CBA process
    in the NPS review session that took place during the summer of 1998.
    The project was later reviewed by NPS and DOI officials, however, and
    found to be critical to the protection of the visitors along the canal
    and inserted it into the 5-year program.
        (8) Virgin Islands National Park, Environmental and Resource
    Preservation Center. This project is for the construction of an
    environmental heritage center that will provide interpretive exhibits
    and interactive displays, an environmental classroom for the visiting
    public and local students, a venue for craft demonstrations, and
    program office space, equipment storage and a meeting room for use by
    park partners. Visitation at the park has risen dramatically in recent
    years and will double within two years with the advent of the Eagle
    Class cruise ships. Additionally, there is a growing need for park
    education programs for area youth in environmental awareness and
    responsibility. Interpretive programs for local schools have increased
    over 200 percent both in the field and in the classroom through an
    acclaimed environmental heritage program. Many groups have been turned
    away highlighting the need for increased programming and facilities.
    Facilities to house and support these programs do not exist. The
    project was not in the CBA priority review process. The criteria
    applied in the CBA and DOI priority setting process weighs heavily in
    favor of health, safety, and resource protection projects. This project
    would not have scored high in that review. Nonetheless, NPS and DOI
    officials determined that the lack of visitor facilities at this park
    coupled with the significant and increasing visitor use justified
    overriding the strict application of the NPS/DOI priority setting
    system.
                        land and water conservation fund
        A series of legislative proposals have been introduced that would
    permanently appropriate a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf oil
    and gas revenues for a wide variety of programs; land acquisition,
    Stateside grants, the UPARR program, historic preservation, endangered
    species programs, etc. Not surprisingly, these are some of the programs
    that generate the most interest in the Interior bill.
        Question. Are you concerned at all, Mr. Secretary, that enactment
    of such legislation could have a detrimental effect on other
    Departmental programs?
        Answer. No. The Lands Legacy Initiative would appropriate the full
    authorized amount of annual receipts credited to the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund from offshore oil drilling to conservation efforts.
    The other programs within Interior do not rely on the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund to secure their funding. Those programs should
    continue to receive the appropriate level of funding this year and into
    the coming years.
        Question. Assuming that funds currently appropriated for these
    programs would be ``backed out'' of this Subcommittee's allocation
    should such legislation be enacted, do you think future Members of
    Congress, future OMB Directors, and future Presidents will remain
    interested in protecting what remains of the Department's discretionary
    programs, whether it be BIA operations, Departmental Management, or the
    Office of Surface Mining?
        Answer. Yes. The Administration believes that it is likely the
    Congress, future OMB Directors, and future Presidents will continue to
    be as interested as they are now in appropriating funding to national
    parks, refuges, BIA operations, and the Department's other
    discretionary programs. These programs continue to support activities
    authorized by the Congress and are important to Administration goals
    including: protection and conservation of the Nation's natural and
    cultural resources; stewardship of Indian trust responsibilities;
    management of public lands; providing recreational and educational
    opportunities; and many others.
                                     fines
        Question. For each of the land management agencies under your
    jurisdiction, are civil and/or criminal fines assessed and collected by
    those agencies deposited in the Treasury, or are such fines retained by
    the collecting agency? To the extent fines are collected under various
    authorities, please describe those authorities, to which agencies they
    apply, and the treatment of collected fines pursuant to those
    authorities.
        Answer. The authorities, types of activity for which fines and
    penalties may be imposed and their disposition, and fiscal year 1998
    collections are shown in the following table.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Treatment and use
                  Bureau                    Statutory authority \1\             Activity fined \2\                 \3\              Fiscal year 1998 \4\
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Land Management.........  Mineral Leasing Act, as amended  Failure of operator to comply    Deposited to          $69 thousand.
                                         and supplemented (30 U.S.C.      with regulations, terms of any   Treasury General
                                         181 et seq.), the Act of May     lease or permit, and             Fund, 14-1099,
                                         21, 1980 (30 U.S.C. 301-306),    requirements of any notice or    Fines, penalties,
                                         the Mineral Leasing Act for      order; failure of operator to    and forfeitures Not
                                         Acquired Lands, as amended (30   install blowout preventer or     Otherwise
                                         U.S.C. 351-359), the Act of      other equivalent well control    Classified.
                                         March 3, 1909, as amended (25    equipment, drilling without
                                         U.S.C. 396), the Act of May      approval or causing
                                         11, 1938, as amended (25         disturbance on Federal or
                                         U.S.C. 396a-396q), the Act of    Indian surface preliminary to
                                         February 28, 1891, as amended    drilling without approval, and
                                         (25 U.S.C. 397), the Act of      failure to obtain approval of
                                         May 29, 1924 (25 U.S.C. 398),    a plan for well abandonment
                                         the Act of March 3, 1927 (25     prior to commencement of such
                                         U.S.C. 398a-398e), the Act of    operations; failure of
                                         June 30, 1919, as amended (25    transporter to permit
                                         U.S.C. 399), R.S. 19441 (43      inspection for proper
                                         U.S.C. 1457), the Attorney       documentation by any
                                         General's Opinion of April 2,    authorized representative;
                                         1941 (40 Op Atty. Gen. 41),      failure or refusal to permit
                                         the Federal Property and         lawful entry or inspection;
                                         Administrative Services Act of   willful or knowing failure to
                                         1949, as amended (40 US.C. 471   notify the authorized officer
                                         et seq.), the National           . . . after any well begins
                                         Environmental Policy Act of      production on which royalty is
                                         1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.      due or resumes production . .
                                         4321 et seq.), the Act of        . ; willful or knowing
                                         December 12, 1980 (94 Stat.      submission of false,
                                         2964), the Combined              inaccurate or misleading
                                         Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of       reports, notices, affidavits,
                                         1981 (95 Stat. 1070), the        records, data or other written
                                         Federal Oil and Gas Royalty      information; and willful or
                                         Management Act of 1982 (30       knowing removal,
                                         U.S.C. 1701), the Indian         transportation, use, or
                                         Mineral Development Act of       diversion of any oil or gas
                                         1982 (25 U.S.C. 2102), and       from any Federal or Indian
                                         Order Number 3087, dated         lease site without valid legal
                                         December 3, 1982, as amended     authority to do so.
                                         on February 7, 1983 (48 FR
                                         8983) under which the
                                         Secretary consolidated and
                                         transferred the onshore
                                         minerals management functions
                                         of the Department, except
                                         mineral revenue functions and
                                         the responsibility for leasing
                                         of restricted Indian lands to
                                         the Bureau of Land Management.
    Bureau of Land Management.........  Title I of the Interior part of  43 U.S.C. 1735(a). Any moneys    Deposited to 14X5017  Information not available.
                                         the Omnibus Consolidated         received by the United States    as an available
                                         Appropriations Act, 1999         as a result of the forfeiture    receipt. (Besides
                                         (Public Law 105-277) Provided,   of a bond or other security by   fines, penalties,
                                         That notwithstanding any         a resource developer or          and forfeitures,
                                         provision to the contrary of     purchaser of permitee who does   deposits to this
                                         section 305(a) of Public Law     not fulfill the requirements     account include:
                                         94B579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)),      of his contract or permit or     charges for
                                         any moneys that have been or     does not comply with the         administrative
                                         will be received pursuant to     regulations of the Secretary;    expenses and other
                                         that section, whether as a       or as a result of a compromise   costs related to
                                         result of forfeiture,            or settlement of any claim       processing
                                         compromise, or settlement, if    whether sounding in tort or in   applications for
                                         not appropriate for refund       contract involving present or    use and disposal of
                                         pursuant to section 305(c) of    potential damage to the public   public lands and
                                         that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)),    lands shall be credited to a     resources, for
                                         shall be available and may be    separate account in the          monitoring,
                                         expended under the authority     Treasury and are hereby          construction,
                                         of this Act by the Secretary     authorized to be appropriated    operation, and
                                         to improve, protect, or          and made available.              termination of
                                         rehabilitate any public lands                                     facilities in
                                         administered through the                                          conjunction with
                                         Bureau of Land Management                                         use authorizations,
                                         which have been damaged by the                                    and for
                                         action of a resource                                              rehabilitation of
                                         developer, purchaser,                                             damaged.).
                                         permittee, or any unauthorized
                                         person, without regard to
                                         whether all moneys collected
                                         from each such action are used
                                         on the exact lands damaged
                                         which led to the action.
    Fish and Wildlife Service.........  Lacey Act P. L. 97-79 16 U.S.C.  Importation, exportation,        Deposited and         Civil--$710.3 thousand.
                                         3371-3378.                       transportation, sale or          credited to a        Criminal--$31.4 thousand.
                                                                          purchase in interstate or        general fund
                                                                          foreign commerce, of fish and    account 14X1611,
                                                                          wildlife taken or possessed in   Resource
                                                                          violation of state, federal,     Management.
                                                                          Indian tribal or foreign laws.   Obligated for
                                                                                                           rewards and
                                                                                                           temporary storage
                                                                                                           of evidence.
    Fish and Wildlife Service.........  Endangered Species Act 16        Importation, exportation,        Deposited and         Civil--$86.7 thousand
                                         U.S.C. 1531-1544.                taking or commercialization in   credited to an        Criminal--$141 thousand.
                                                                          interstate or foreign commerce   appropriated
                                                                          of fish, wildlife, or plants     general fund
                                                                          that are listed as threatened    account 14X1611,
                                                                          or endangered species.           Resource
                                                                                                           Management.
                                                                                                           Obligated for
                                                                                                           rewards and
                                                                                                           temporary storage
                                                                                                           of evidence.
    Fish and Wildlife Service.........  Migratory Bird Treaty Act16      Pursuit, hunting, killing,       Collected into an     $3,716.8 thousand.
                                         U.S.C. 703-712.                  capturing, possessing, buying,   unavailable receipt
                                                                          selling, purchase, or barter     account, 14-5241,
                                                                          of any migratory bird,           then warranted and
                                                                          including the feathers or        spent as an
                                                                          other parts, nests, eggs, or     available receipt
                                                                          migratory bird products.         in 14X5241, North
                                                                                                           American Wetlands
                                                                                                           Conservation Fund.
                                                                                                           Obligated for the
                                                                                                           purposes of the
                                                                                                           North American
                                                                                                           Wetlands
                                                                                                           Conservation Act,
                                                                                                           16 U.S.C. 4406.
    Fish and Wildlife Service.........  Not specifically identified....  Fines assessed by the courts in  Deposited to          $31 thousand.
                                                                          suits brought for trespass,      Treasury General
                                                                          and accidental or malicious      Fund14-1099.
                                                                          environmental damage; and
                                                                          suits under the Debt
                                                                          Collection Improvement Act.
    National Park Service.............  NPS authority is derived from    Violation of regulations         The Ranger            Traffic related citations,
                                         16 U.S.C. 1, which gives the     necessary for safe management    Activities Division   $3,294 thousand.
                                         Secretary authority to issue     of the National Park System.     of the National      Non-traffic related
                                         any regulations necessary for                                     Park Service does     citations, $2,616 thousand.
                                         the safe management of the                                        not collect
                                         National Park System. In park                                     criminal fines; the
                                         areas under the legislative                                       fines go to the
                                         jurisdiction of the United                                        Central Violations
                                         States, NPS enforces 16 U.S.C,                                    Bureau, U.S.
                                         18 U.S.C, 21 U.S.C, 25 U.S.C.                                     Department of
                                         and 42 U.S.C. as well as 33                                       Justice. The courts
                                         CFR, 36 CFR, 40 CFR, 43 CFR                                       assess civil fines,
                                         and 50 CFR.                                                       and if any money is
                                                                                                           received by the
                                                                                                           NPS, it is usually
                                                                                                           as reimbursement of
                                                                                                           expenses. Civil
                                                                                                           fines are credited
                                                                                                           to NPS
                                                                                                           appropriations as a
                                                                                                           reimbursement of
                                                                                                           expenses.
    National Park Service.............  22 Stat. 243, chapter 389,       The same powers and duties as    United States Park    $6,670.5 thousand.
                                         August 5, 1882; 41 Stat. 364,    the Metropolitan Police in       Police does not
                                         chapter 1, section 3, December   Washington, D.C. Also, on and    collect criminal
                                         5, 1919; 45 Stat. 721, May 23,   within the roads, parkways,      fines; the fines go
                                         1928; 46 Stat. 482, May 29,      and other Federal reservations   to the Central
                                         1930; 62 Stat. 81, March 17,     in the environs of the           Violations Bureau,
                                         1948, and Public Law 94-458,     District of Columbia over        U.S. Department of
                                         90 Stat. 1939, October 7, 1976.  which the United States has,     Justice. Tickets
                                                                          or shall hereafter acquire,      written or fines
                                                                          exclusive or concurrent          imposed for parking
                                                                          criminal jurisdiction, the       (or similar
                                                                          United States Park Police        violations) in the
                                                                          shall have the power and         District of
                                                                          authority to make arrests for    Columbia
                                                                          violation of any Federal law     metropolitan area
                                                                          or regulations issued pursuant   go the D.C. Bureau
                                                                          to law. In 1976, the Secretary   of Traffic
                                                                          of the Interior was authorized   Adjudication or
                                                                          to designate certain officers    other local
                                                                          of employees of the Department   governments. Civil
                                                                          of the Interior who shall        fines are assessed
                                                                          maintain law and order and       by the courts, and
                                                                          protect persons and property     if any money is
                                                                          within areas of the National     received by the
                                                                          Park System.                     NPS, its is usually
                                                                                                           as reimbursement of
                                                                                                           expenses.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Authority under which fines are collected (provide P.L and Stat., or U.S. Code citations).
    \2\ Description of activity for which fines are imposed.
    \3\ Deposited to General Fund--deposited to special fund, but subject to appropriation; or retained and spent either as an available receipt or as an
      offsetting collection credited to an appropriation. If use is authorized, describe how the revenue may be used.) Specify account symbol and title.
    \4\ Collections--Actual amount of fines collected in fiscal year 1998.

     independence for functions of contract rate setting and audit in the
                                   department
        Within the Department of the Interior, the Office of the Inspector
    General both establishes the contracting rates and audits them. In
    contrast, the Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Cost
    Allocation sets contracting rates for thousands of contractors. Audits
    of rates are conducted by a different office. The GAO has raised the
    issue of independence of the two functions.
        Question. Shouldn't the rate setting function and the auditing
    function be independent of one another? The Office of Policy and Budget
    is the obvious place for rate-setting, and the issue has come up in the
    past. Why hasn't the Department established independence for these
    functions?
        Answer. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) negotiates cost rates
    with approximately 350 Indian organizations, 50 state agencies, 20
    insular government organizations, and five non-profit organizations. In
    general, however, the OIG does not conduct audits of the tribes or
    other grantees. Under the provisions of the Single Audit Act, certified
    public accountants from the private sector audit the expenditure of
    Federal funds by grantees and Indian tribes. When there are specific
    requests to the OIG to conduct audits related to overhead rates, such
    as close-out of a construction contract, the OIG usually arranges for
    these audits to be conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
        In 1989 the Department proposed to transfer the function of
    negotiating indirect cost rates from the Office of Inspector General to
    the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget.
    The Inspector General and the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
    Management and Budget supported the transfer on the basis that the
    negotiation of indirect cost rates is a program function. However,
    Indian Tribes did not support the transfer, as expressed in a May 5,
    1989, letter from then-Senator Quentin Burdick to Senator Robert Byrd
    which stated:

              ``Tribes oppose the transfer on a number of grounds. They
            have found negotiations with the Inspector General's Office to
            be a fair and objective process. They are concerned that if the
            function is transferred, it will be used as a vehicle for
            cutting the budget justification. . . . I request that in the
            Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year (fiscal year)
            1990, the Committee prohibit the transfer of the indirect cost
            function to the Office of the Secretary. I enclose bill and
            report language that would accomplish this result.''

        No funds were provided for the transfer in fiscal year 1990.
        The Department has not thoroughly revisited this question since
    that time. We do believe it is acceptable to have both functions in one
    organization. The segregation of duties does not require that the
    functions be performed by independent organizations--just by separate
    individuals--or subject to supervisory review when there may be
    inadequate segregation of duties. All OIG audits are subject to several
    levels of supervisory review, and there are further checks and
    balances, since the OIG does not have the authority to compel action by
    bureaus.
        In any case the Department believes that it can not change the
    process for negotiating the rates until the Ramah Navajo Chapter v.
    Babbitt lawsuit is resolved. On May 8, 1997, the Tenth Circuit Court of
    Appeals ruled in Ramah that the method used to negotiate indirect costs
    by the Inspector General violated Public Law 93-638 (the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended). [The Bureau of
    Indian Affairs equates indirect costs to contract support. Contract
    support represents the amount of funds which the Bureau annually
    estimates Indian organizations will need to administer Public Law 93-
    638 contracts]. As a result of the decision in Ramah, the Department
    must either change the method for negotiating indirect costs or develop
    a different system for estimating the amount of contract support. In
    that regard, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and the
    National Congress on American Indians are currently preparing their
    recommendations for changes to the system for determining contract
    support. Until a decision on a new system is made, the District Court
    has authorized only the ``continued negotiation of indirect cost rates
    under the system in place prior to the Tenth Circuit decision.'' (Civil
    No. 90-0957, Order of District Court for the District of New Mexico,
    November 4, 1997.)
        Before a transfer could be implemented, the Department would have
    to consult with tribal governments, in accordance with the President's
    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, dated
    April 29, 1994. The Memorandum requires each executive department and
    agency to ``consult, to the greatest extent practicable and to the
    extent permitted by law, with tribal governments prior to taking
    actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments.''
                           Bureau of Land Management
                                     almrs
        Recently GAO testified that BLM has spent over $411 million on this
    project over the last 15 years but the $67 million software component
    of this system has serious problems.
        Question. Can any part of this software be salvaged so that it
    meets users' needs, or is it a total loss?
        Answer. The BLM is conducting an analysis, with the assistance of
    an outside expert third party contractor, of the developed system to
    determine what parts might be used and at what cost. Initial
    assessments indicate that some parts of the ALMRS software performed
    well, met user requirements, and probably could be salvaged for future
    use. The results of this analysis are expected to be available by mid-
    summer.
        The ALMRS project relied on a combination of custom software and
    commercial off-the-shelf software. The new technologies we acquired
    (Internet access, reporting database, user-friendly query tools, etc.)
    have been incorporated into the Y2K-compliant Legacy Rehost 2000
    Project and will be used for future land and resource information
    systems. Furthermore, commercial off-the-shelf software we purchased is
    currently being used in BLM's overall data management and development
    of the Spatial Display and Query Module.
        While we are not deploying ALMRS as originally conceived, we
    collected a significant amount of user requirements, documented
    critical business processes, and defined information requirements that
    will be useful in any future development efforts. The BLM also
    benefited from establishing data standards, and from collecting,
    analyzing, and cleaning up the legacy data. The Geographic Coordinate
    Data Base (GCDB) we built will be critical to be able to spatially
    display land information in the future. This data is currently being
    used throughout BLM and by the public and will be used in future
    systems.
        Question. What are BLM's recommendations on how to proceed with the
    automation of its record systems?
        Answer. Our recommendation is to build on the lessons learned from
    the ALMRS project and proceed in a deliberate and thorough manner to:
      --re-validate our users' business needs;
      --re-engineer our business processes before automating them;
      --carefully analyze our options, including risks, costs, and
            benefits, before selecting a course of action;
      --obtain outside expertise in areas of critical technical skills;
      --adopt a management methodology that clearly identifies risks and
            prevents proceeding to subsequent steps until the risks and
            problems of previous steps are addressed and resolved and also
            establishes reliable, achievable plans and schedules;
      --involve users continuously throughout the development, testing,
            implementation, and operations and maintenance phases of any
            new efforts;
      --build new systems in a more incremental, modular fashion; and
      --identify opportunities for partnering, such as with the U.S. Forest
            Service on common lands data, where we have similar needs.
        The overall emphasis of the recommendations above is to give the
    BLM sufficient time and resources to enable BLM to organize and manage
    for improved results in the next generation of projects.
        Question. What are the costs associated with these recommendations?
        Answer. Since the analysis of a number of different options on how
    to proceed and the identification of the re-usable parts of the
    previous investments is still underway, it is not possible to provide
    an accurate estimate of future costs at this time. We expect to be able
    to answer this question in the near future.
        Question. Based on its experience with ALMRS, does BLM plan to
    improve the process by which it makes acquisition decisions for
    information technology? If so, how will this process be improved?
        Answer. Yes, the BLM does plan to improve its information
    technology acquisition decision process. The BLM will incorporate a
    system life cycle methodology to maximize the value of system
    acquisition, integration and mitigate the risks. The Bureau will be
    directed to adopt a rigorous, structured process to select, control and
    evaluate its information technology investment compliant to the
    Clinger-Cohen Act. The BLM has already established the Information
    Technology Investment Board, consistent with the recommendations of the
    Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, for this purpose. An
    Investment Analysis will be conducted before a system is developed to
    ensure sound capital investment decision making. The BLM has been
    advised to use the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity
    Model approach to assess information technology capabilities in system
    acquisition, increase long term management training, and augment
    information technology skills from consulting firms.
        The Department has provided guidance in project management,
    information technology infrastructure, and software development
    methodologies. The BLM is re-validating its business needs with its
    users and customers, guided by the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen
    Act. The Bureau is carefully reviewing its business processes to
    identify opportunities to re-engineer those processes to streamline
    them, reduce the time they take, reduce costs, and improve customer
    service. Recognizing the need to obtain and retain technical talent to
    oversee software development, BLM is building its project management
    and technical skills for information technology projects. The BLM has
    retained several outside expert contractors to assist in its planning
    efforts and assessment of needs, and to recommend the means to meet
    those needs in the future. The Y2K compliant approach to BLM's legacy
    land and mineral systems will meet immediate requirements. The BLM is
    reexamining its long-term land and mineral program needs and evaluating
    the potential gap between these needs and the Y2K systems. The BLM will
    then acquire and/or develop systems and technology to support any unmet
    high priority needs.
        The BLM is conducting an analysis, with the assistance of an
    outside third party contractor, of the developed system to determine
    what parts might be used and at what cost. This type of analysis is
    also taking place on BLM's Legacy Rehost 2000 Project. The BLM has
    asked its users to validate the Bureau's objectives and prioritize key
    business processes. These efforts will form the basis to recast BLM's
    concept of operations. However, more analysis needs to take place to
    clearly identify the systems and modules that need to be developed,
    including the National Integrated Land System. This analysis will
    include a detailed business analysis and a return on investment
    analysis.
        Users will be continuously involved from the project's inception
    and will identify the business requirements. The users will also review
    the information technology response to the requirements, the test
    script preparation, the testing, the training material preparation as
    well as the presentation. Finally they will become responsible for user
    support for the system.
        The BLM is adopting the Managed Evolutionary Development (MED)
    methodology to develop systems. MED is conducted by producing
    successive iterations of specified documents at each stage of a
    project. These documents identify uncertainties which translate into
    risk. MED requires that analysis be conducted to reduce the risk before
    a project may proceed. The BLM is contracting with Mitretek to assist
    in implementing MED. Mitretek will also provide quality assurance to
    ensure that all tasks and risks are identified and that appropriate
    mitigation is applied.
        Future development will follow these principles:
      --design, testing, and fielding will be done in modules;
      --``off-the-shelf'' software will be used as much as possible;
      --software will be designed with performance requirements and
            maintainability built in from the beginning; and
      --project management will use risk management techniques to ensure
            investments in new modules does not begin until risk and
            uncertainty has been reduced to a reasonable level.
        This modular type of approach will not be as prone to excessive
    delays or cost overruns because each module will be small enough to
    manage well, and the duration short enough so that reliable estimates
    can be made at the beginning of the module development.
                            coalbed methane permits
        BLM's oil and gas program continues to experience significant
    growth due to industry's interest in coalbed methane in the Rocky
    Mountain states, particularly Wyoming. Documents from BLM indicate that
    the agency expects that in Wyoming alone 1100-1200 additional
    applications for permits to drill (APDs) will be received each year
    over the next five years. According to BLM's budget only enough funding
    is requested to process 200 more APDs across the entire nation.
        Question. How does the agency plan to address the increased number
    of APDs for coalbed methane in Wyoming and other Rocky Mountain states?
        Answer. BLM's oil and gas program is experiencing significant
    growth due to industry's interest in coalbed methane. BLM's projections
    indicate over 8,700 APDs may be filed in a four state area in the next
    four years.
        In Wyoming, the BLM is reallocating personnel and resources from
    some of their current assignments to handle part of the anticipated
    coalbed methane workload. However, that will not allow the BLM to fully
    process all of the coalbed methane applications. The BLM will have to
    forego other work throughout the State to meet these needs.
        In Utah, the BLM has no additional staff that it can allocate to
    this growing workload, and therefore the BLM is unable to process all
    the APDs in a timely fashion. In Wyoming and Utah, we have informed
    industry of expected delays in processing requests for approval. In
    Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico, the BLM is utilizing existing
    personnel to complete environmental documents for coalbed methane areas
    in anticipation of a large increase in coalbed methane APDs and
    associated workload.
        As part of the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriation, an additional $1.0 million was redirected from other BLM
    funds to assist in the development of coalbed methane. The Bureau does
    not explicitly budget for development of coalbed methane. At present,
    permit review and associated work is funded from the ``Oil and Gas
    Management'' subactivity, for which BLM requested a modest increase--to
    $55,326,000--in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The magnitude of
    increased industry demand for coalbed methane was not anticipated at
    the time the President's budget was prepared. However, some additional
    work on processing CBM requests can and will be accommodated within the
    amount included in the 2000 request for Oil and Gas Management.
        Question. How many additional applications for permits to drill
    (APDs) for coalbed methane does the agency expect in fiscal year 2000
    versus fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. Based on the BLM's and industry's projections, the BLM
    anticipates approximately 8,700 APDs for coalbed methane to be filed
    between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2003. In 1999 and 2000, the
    BLM anticipates receiving about one third of this work, primarily in
    Wyoming, Utah, and Montana.
        Question. How much additional money is needed to process all
    expected APDs?
        Answer. The BLM currently estimates that the costs to address
    priority coalbed methane activity could range as high as $4 to $5
    million in fiscal year 2000. It is estimated that Wyoming could use as
    much as $2-$2.5 million for its activities, primarily leasing and
    processing of APDs. The remaining costs will be split between Utah,
    Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico to complete any necessary NEPA
    requirements and permitting work for APDs.
        Question. Shouldn't a high priority be placed on processing APDs,
    since the earlier wells go into production the sooner the royalty
    revenue can be collected?
        Answer. The BLM recognizes the need to process APDs and all other
    approvals in a timely manner as these decisions impact revenue and
    other public interests. However, this unanticipated high level of
    industry activity will not allow the BLM to meet its usual standards
    for timely processing of all post lease applications. The BLM will
    continue to make every effort to process APDs in the shortest time
    possible.
        Question. What is the impact of increased activity in the permit
    processing for coalbed methane on other aspects of the agency's energy
    and minerals program? How does BLM plan to address these impacts over
    the long-term?
        Answer. As funds and personnel are shifted to APD processing, other
    post-APD and other work may become backlogged. The BLM will seek budget
    increases if shifts alone are not able to meet the demand. Budget
    increases would allow BLM to hire additional personnel to process the
    anticipated APD workload.
                                grazing permits
        Due to the ``Comb Wash Decision'' issued by the Interior Board of
    Land Appeals in 1997, the BLM must now conduct NEPA compliance and Land
    Use Plan conformance reviews before re-authorizing livestock grazing
    permits or leases. According to the agency's budget justification 1,000
    permits which are due to expire in 1999 will have to be addressed in
    2000. This is in addition to the 1,900 permits that will expire in
    2000. The BLM has requested $2.5 million more to handle this workload.
        Question. Is $2.5 million sufficient to complete the environmental
    review of all the grazing permits that will expire in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The proposed $2.5 million requested in the fiscal year 2000
    President's Budget, when combined with existing BLM resources, will
    provide sufficient funding to compile and analyze the data necessary to
    review and complete the permits expiring in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. If all permits set to expire in 2000 will not be
    processed, why is the Administration proposing to delete language from
    last year's Interior Appropriations bill which provided that grazing
    permits that would otherwise expire are renewed on the same terms and
    conditions until BLM completes the processing of the permit?
        Answer. The BLM expects to have the backlog completed by the end of
    fiscal year 2000 and be able to keep pace with expiring permits in
    fiscal year 2001 and beyond.
        Question. Does the Administration have another proposal to address
    expiring permits in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The BLM is making every effort to achieve the timely
    completion of environmental review/permit renewal prior to their
    expiration. The BLM plans to address the renewal reviews during a 5 to
    6 month period between the end of the grazing season in 1999 (for most
    operations this is November 1999) and the beginning of the 2000 grazing
    period (April 2000 for most operators), or a similar lead time before a
    permit expires. This strategy will enable the BLM to use lead time for
    completing renewal actions, provided there are no fiscal year 1999
    permit renewals carried over from 1999 having resulted from commitment
    of work forces to an active fire fighting season, emergency fire
    rehabilitation demands or increases in litigation/appeal workload.
        Question. Does this mean that if the BLM doesn't complete the
    environmental review of grazing permits that the holders of these
    permits will be thrown off the public lands?
        Answer. The BLM is exploring all options within applicable laws and
    regulations to avoid disrupting permittees' or lessees' grazing
    operations in cases where it appears that permit renewal will not be
    completed in a timely manner.
                                      fire
        The Department of Interior is funding its Fire Preparedness
    operation at 83 percent of the Most Efficient Level (MEL), while the
    Forest Service is funding its preparedness operations at 67 percent of
    MEL.
        Question. Does this discrepancy between the Forest Service funding
    and DOI funding create any problems in fire fighting? If so, what
    problems?
        Answer. The magnitude of any impact depends on the severity of the
    fire season. The number and type of fire suppression resources and
    support are planned for the average annual workload. When the
    firefighting resources available, regardless of the agency source, are
    less than those planned for the average annual workload, at the most
    efficient level (MEL), more fires will escape initial attack. These
    fires may become large, and consequently both suppression costs and
    damages could increase dramatically. The MEL is the least total cost of
    preparedness, suppression, rehabilitation, and resource losses.
    Although no agency is being provided full MEL funding, as the
    percentage of MEL funding decreases, the amount of fire suppression
    resources that agencies have will decrease accordingly. More fires will
    escape initial attack leading to a greater total workload for the
    interagency fire community. For years, the five federal agencies with
    wildland fire management programs (BLM, BIA, FWS, NPS and USFS) and the
    States have coordinated and cooperated on all wildland fire activities.
    The fire community shares their resources, both in the initial attack
    phase and for large fires, and all of the agencies endorse the
    ``closest forces'' and ``total mobility'' firefighting concepts. When
    events such as dry lighting storms occur, there are often an
    overwhelming number of multiple ignitions resulting in wildland fires.
    Adequate response to these situations is especially dependent upon
    interagency assistance. When one agency's funding is significantly less
    than MEL, especially if they are a large agency such as the Forest
    Service, there could be a direct and immediate impact on the total fire
    community.
        Question. As the costs of fire increase in terms of property damage
    and suppression costs, how is the MEL affected? In other words, will it
    cost more to maintain the same level of the MEL in the future? What are
    the agency's projections over the next five years to maintain the
    current level of MEL?
        Answer. The MEL-based fire management organization is designed to
    manage the average annual wildland fire workload most effectively and
    efficiently, at the least total cost, in accordance with land
    management objectives. Total cost is defined as the sum of the costs of
    preparedness, suppression, rehabilitation, and damages. As populations
    shift and grow, and there are more values at risk in wildlands, more
    preparedness resources will be required to maintain a given level of
    protection. Technology changes, to maintain efficiency and ensure
    safety, will require enhancements in engines, aircraft, global
    positioning systems, radios, and remote sensing capabilities. These
    improvements could increase the costs of preparedness. Inflation of the
    costs of goods and services used in the emergency sector have increased
    at a greater rate than the overall national average. Due to factors
    such as these, the MEL has increased over the last ten years, for the
    four Interior agencies, at an average annual rate of slightly less than
    seven percent. We anticipate a five to six percent annual increase over
    the next five years. Somewhat slowing the growth in preparedness costs
    is an expected counteracting effect from the Interior and Agriculture
    Departments' fuels treatment programs. As fuel loads are reduced when
    more and more Federal acreage is managed by use of prescribed burns and
    mechanical means, the Departments expect that the rate of increase in
    preparedness costs will slow. Whether that drop in costs will take
    place within the next five years is a question still being researched.
        Question. What is the BLM's strategy for addressing the wildland
    fire issues in the urban interface?
        Answer. The BLM has cooperatively initiated a fire awareness/
    education campaign in many parts of the country where the wildland/
    urban fire interface issues are significant. This effort is tied to
    State Forestry programs, and local, city, and county Fire Departments.
    The BLM is also initiating a program to formally increase cooperative
    training and sharing of wildland suppression resources with key Rural
    Fire Departments (RFDs) that have intermixed suppression
    responsibilities with BLM. While grass and brush is the most common
    vegetation on BLM lands, it does not present the classic fuels build-up
    situation found on forested land. Where BLM forest and woodlands exist,
    the emphasis is on conducting prescribed burns and mechanical
    treatments that will result in hazardous fuels reductions in the urban
    interface. The intermix of public and private lands poses significant
    management challenges to the BLM. Much of this intermix does not fit
    the ``classic'' interface situation characterized by long, continuous
    boundaries between public and private lands. Rather, the BLM intermix
    can be characterized as a complex mixture ranging from small parcels,
    with extensive public--private land boundaries located right up to the
    edges of developed subdivisions and towns, blending into larger parcels
    and higher percentages of public land the farther you go from developed
    centers. Because of this situation it is imperative that BLM, the RFDs,
    and the land owners work together to reduce hazards and improve
    suppression effectiveness. The BLM has worked to develop Fire Safety
    Councils and Fire Prevention Cooperatives to solve local problems. The
    BLM has also completed workshops with our Field Offices to perform a
    hazard risk analysis and identify where losses may be the greatest,
    focusing on intervention in these areas. At the national level, the BLM
    was instrumental in providing a technical advisor for the creation of
    the recent IMAX film on wildfires. Actions such as these, along with
    the development of an Internet web page (www.firewise.org), provide
    local communities, homeowners, and fire departments with important
    technical information on how to assess their risks and take actions to
    protect their properties. In summary, this is a long term challenge,
    for all of the Interior fire management bureaus, that is being
    addressed cooperatively. Success will be measured through awareness,
    partnerships, and on the ground mitigation measures that are
    periodically repeated.
                              crown jewel project
        Based on a recent Department of Interior Solicitor's opinion, the
    Plan of Operations at the Crown Jewel mine in Washington state was
    denied. This was after the EIS and Record of Decision for the project
    were finalized and upheld in court against a legal challenge. The
    company involved has invested over $80 million in the project to date.
        Question. Did the Department of Interior take into account the
    advanced state of the project and fairness to the companies involved
    when it sent the letter revoking the Record of Decision?
        Answer. The Solicitor's Opinion regarding the mill site acreage
    limitation in the Mining Law of 1872 was issued on November 7, 1997--
    more than sixteen months before the Departments of the Interior and
    Agriculture notified Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMG) by letter dated
    March 25, 1999 that the proposed Crown Jewel plan of operations could
    not be approved. The issuance of the Opinion, including the fact that
    it would be applied to pending proposed plans of operations, was
    reported in the mining industry trade press shortly after it was
    issued. When the Solicitor met with representatives of Battle Mountain
    Gold Company on March 3, 1999 to discuss the history of the proposed
    project, the company's representatives acknowledged that they were
    aware of the November 1997 Solicitor's Opinion shortly after it was
    issued.
        The Opinion does not propose a novel interpretation of the law. As
    the March 25, 1999, letter to BMG states:

              ``After careful and thorough consideration of your arguments,
            we believe that it is appropriate to apply the mill site
            limitation to this project for two reasons. First, we have no
            authority to enlarge the rights granted under the Mining Law;
            that power is reserved to Congress. Second, the mill site
            limitation is not, as BMG's March 9 letter argues, comparable
            to the proposed part 3809 regulations, which contain
            substantive changes in the requirements for mining operations
            that would justify a transition period. As the Solicitor's
            Opinion notes, the limitations on mill sites in the Mining Law
            have been widely appreciated by mining industry lawyers for
            decades. Adherence to the Mining Law's limitation on allowable
            mill site acreage by all mining claimants thus should not
            thwart any legitimately-held expectations.''

        Question. Does the Revocation Letter embody or create a rule that
    the Department of Interior will apply to every pending plan of
    operations? If so, what is the rule?
        Answer. The March 25, 1999 letter to BMG did not create any new
    rule or policy. It reflects limitations on mill sites that have been
    mandated by the Mining Law since 1872, as explained in the November
    1997 Solicitor's Opinion. The Solicitor's Opinion advised BLM not to
    ``approve plans of operations which rely on a greater number of
    millsites than the number of associated claims being developed unless
    the use of additional lands is obtained through other means.'' As to
    other proposed plans of operations, this advice will continue to apply.
        Question. Before the Revocation Letter was sent, had the rule ever
    been applied to a pending plan of operations?
        Answer. As mentioned in the 1997 Solicitor's Opinion, limitations
    on mill sites in the Mining Law have been widely appreciated by mining
    industry lawyers for decades. See Attached Solicitor's Opinion, at 12-
    14; see also 4 American Law of Mining Sec. 110.03[1] (2d. ed. 1987)
    (``Because of the relatively uncertain tenure of mill site claims, few
    miners choose mill sites as a location for permanent mining support
    facilities.'') The decision with respect to the Crown Jewel mine is the
    first occasion since the Solicitor's Opinion was issued that the mill
    site limitation in the Mining Law has been applied to disapprove a
    proposed plan of operations.
        Question. Did the Department of Interior study the effect of the
    rule on the mining industry?
        Answer. Because the mill site limitation is imposed by statute, the
    Department has no discretion to refrain from applying the law based on
    its effect on the mining industry. The effect of the limitation on the
    industry has been considered in numerous publications cited in the
    Solicitor's Opinion. See, e.g., Office of Technology Assessment,
    ``Management of Fuel and Nonfuel Minerals in Federal Land, at 127
    (April 1979) (cited in S olicitor's Opinion at 13).
        Question. Does the rule conflict with the BLM manual?
        Answer. The following discussion on this point appears in the 1997
    Solicitor's Opinion:
        The first regulations issued by the General Land Office in 1872
    stated unequivocally: ``The law expressly limits mill-site locations
    made from and after its passage to five acres, but whether so much as
    that can be located depends upon the local customs, rules, or
    regulations.'' Mining Regulations Sec. 91, June 10, 1872, Copp, U.S.
    Mining Decisions 1270, 292 (1874) (emphasis in original).
        The current BLM regulation on millsite patenting continues to refer
    to the five acre limit, and is fairly interpreted to prohibit locating
    more than one five-acre millsite in connection with each mining claim:

              [P]arties holding the possessory right to a vein or lode
            claim, and to a piece of nonmineral land not contiguous thereto
            for mining or milling purposes, not exceeding the quantity
            allowed for such purpose by R.S. 2337 . . . may file in the
            proper office their application for a patent, which application
            . . . may include, embrace, and describe . . . such
            noncontiguous millsite. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3864.1-1(b) (emphasis
            added).
        The regulation speaks of millsites exclusively in the singular: a
    party holding the right to ``a'' mining claim and ``a piece of
    nonmineral land'' may apply for a patent, and shall describe ``such . .
    . millsite'' in the application. There is no suggestion in the
    regulation that more than one millsite may be patented in connection
    with a mining claim.
        BLM's Handbook for Mineral Examiners, on the other hand, currently
    provides that ``[a]ny number of millsites may be located but each must
    be used in connection with the mining or milling operation.'' BLM
    Handbook for Mineral Examiners, H-3890-1, Ch. III Sec. 8 (Rel. 3/17/
    89). The handbook cites no authority for this interpretation.
        This provision may come from a handbook that is often used by BLM
    mineral examiners: Terry Maley's Handbook of Mineral Law (5th ed.
    1993). In this handbook Maley, himself a BLM mineral examiner, states:

              There is no specific direction in the Federal law or
            regulations concerning how a millsite may be located or how
            many mill sites may be located. . . . [T]here is no limitation
            to the number of mill sites that may be located as long as each
            mill site is properly ``used or occupied'' for ``mining or
            milling purposes.'' Id. at 191.
        No authority is cited for these statements. There is no legal
    analysis or discussion of the legislative history, regulations and
    caselaw related to this provision. These assertions may, however,
    explain why some BLM field offices apparently have, in recent years,
    ignored the limitations of the Mining Law and BLM's regulations.
        BLM's Instruction Memorandum dated August 17, 1998, sets up a
    procedure to apply the Solicitor's Opinion to pending plans of
    operations.
        Question. In what circumstance is the Instruction Memorandum being
    used?
        Answer. The Instruction Memorandum provides policy guidance for BLM
    staff reviewing proposed plans of operation that do not comply with the
    mill site limitations in the Mining Law. It does not apply to lands
    administered by the Forest Service.
        Question. Was the Instruction Memorandum procedure followed in
    issuing the Revocation Letter to Battle Mountain?
        Answer. Most of the lands encompassed by the proposed Crown Jewel
    project are National Forest lands; consequently, BLM's Instruction
    Memorandum had little application to this project.
                              wild horse and burro
        Last year's Appropriations bill required the Wild Horse and Burro
    Advisory Board to file a report with the Subcommittee by March 1, 1999
    regarding the cost, efficacy, and social acceptability of various
    methods of controlling horse and burro populations.
        Question. When will this report be issued? What are the key
    findings of this report on these issues?
        Answer. The Advisory Board report to the Appropriations Committee
    was forwarded to the Appropriations Committees on May 21, 1999.
        The Board has met a total of five times since its inception in
    January 1998, focusing heavily on off-the-range issues such as
    adoption, marketing strategy, animal training, gelding and program
    management. This level of scrutiny by the Board was necessary to
    address the problems associated with the large number of older and
    difficult to adopt animals in holding facilities. Despite the off-the-
    range focus, the Board did discuss and offer some recommendations for
    on-the-range issues such as immuno-contraception and euthanasia. The
    report incorporates these recommendations and their status.
        A key policy recommendation made by the Board addressed when and
    how euthanasia should be used on unhealthy animals. BLM issued and
    implemented policy on the humane destruction of unhealthy animals,
    including those animals residing on the Prairie National Wild Horse
    Refuge in Oklahoma.
        The Board will concentrate on issues affecting on-the-range
    management of wild horses and burros for the remainder of its term,
    addressing this issue in depth in the final report.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the program might result from
    the findings contained in the report?
        Answer. The Board did not specifically recommend changes to the
    program regarding population control. However, BLM continues to pursue
    immuno-contraceptive research. The BLM began research in 1992 on
    immuno-contraception as a technique for managing fertility in wild
    horse populations. The researchers are focused on developing an immuno-
    contraceptive vaccine requiring only one injection that is effective
    for three or more breeding seasons and can be applied to meet specific
    herd management criteria. Currently a single injection, one year
    vaccine, with an efficacy rate of greater than 90 percent is being used
    and analyzed as a management tool.
        BLM initiated field management studies of the one-year vaccine in
    Nevada beginning in November 1998, in the Antelope, Antelope Valley,
    Monte Cristo Sand Springs East and Sand Springs West Herd Management
    Areas. These field trials have two objectives: (1) evaluate the
    reformulation of the vaccine designed to improve its efficacy; and (2)
    evaluate application of the vaccine on a population-wide basis to slow
    reproduction by at least 50 percent. BLM treated a total of 761 mares
    with the vaccine.
        In November 1999, BLM will implement field trials of the two year
    vaccine requiring one injection. Final results of these trials will not
    be available until fiscal year 2001. It is estimated that between 1,500
    and 2,000 mares can be treated each year depending on gathering needs,
    weather conditions, availability of the vaccine, and budget. Of these
    constraints, the most limiting is vaccine availability. The current
    research team, under contract with BLM, is the only source of the
    vaccine. Their ability to produce the vaccine in quantities needed by
    BLM for widespread application will require hiring additional personnel
    and is dependent on BLM funding. The vaccine drug costs approximately
    $80.00 per application.
        As recommended by the Board, BLM is providing vaccine application
    training through the contractor to BLM Wild Horse and Burro
    Specialists. The first formal training is scheduled to take place in
    Billings, MT, during August of 1999.
        Knowledge gained from current research efforts on herd health and
    dynamics will dictate the scope at which BLM implements widespread
    application of the vaccine. In compliance with the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), planned gathers along with site-
    specific fertility control applications (HMA level) will be subject to
    complete analysis of the potential affects on herds, and on other
    associated resource values.
        Question. What is the current status of the adoption part of the
    program? Has the backlog of corralled animals been reduced? How many
    animals per year for the next three years does the agency expect to
    provide for adoption?
        Answer. As directed by Public Law 105-83, the Department of the
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, the BLM
    utilizes the competitive bid process for adoption events where
    appropriate. Over 60 percent of the adoption events held thus far in
    fiscal year 1999 were conducted using competitive bid. This percentage
    will continue to increase with time. Unrelated to adoption method
    (i.e., competitive vs. non-competitive), the number of animals adopted
    over the last several years has decreased due to a general decline in
    public demand for wild horses. To compensate for the decline in demand,
    BLM has increased both marketing efforts and the number of adoption
    events, improving visibility of the animals and the program. An
    additional challenge facing the program is that approximately 500
    unadopted animals have been in the adoption system over six months even
    though BLM is using all means available to improve the animal's chances
    of being adopted. Efforts included gelding, training, gentling and
    individual advertising on the Internet. BLM is currently considering
    other innovative options.
        BLM has implemented a selective removal policy that requires the
    removal of only those animals that are five years old and younger from
    the range in order to provide animals that are more desirable to
    adopters. The average number of animals maintained in holding
    facilities has decreased because BLM is controlling the number of
    animals removed from the range. These removal policies are contingent
    on the flow of animals through the facilities to willing, eligible
    adopters. A reasonable projection for animals to be removed over the
    next few years with a static adoption market averages approximately
    7,300 to 8,500 animals per year. The projected number of mares BLM will
    treat with the immuno-contraceptive vaccine is 1,500 to 2,000 per year.
        Adoption and fertility control currently remain the only available
    tools for population control on the range. In spite of efforts to
    improve the adoption program and the use of the fertility control
    measure, populations will likely increase at a rate higher than our
    capability to remove and adopt excess animals. As a result range
    resources and herd health will be at risk.
                       national petroleum reserve--alaska
        Question. What is the current status of the proposed lease sale in
    the NPR-A? Will the sale occur as scheduled? If not, why not?
        Answer. The NPR-A lease sale was held on May 5, 1999, offering 431
    tracts on approximately 3.9 million acres. We received high bids
    totaling $104,635,728 for 133 tracts covering 867,450.39 acres. The
    overwhelming number of bids was focused in the northeast corner of the
    lease sale area on tracts rated by the BLM as having high potential for
    oil and gas.
        Question. What is the expected level of interest in this project
    from industry? What impact will the additional work load created by the
    NPR-A have on other aspects of the BLM's oil and gas program in Alaska?
    Has the agency requested sufficient funds for the Alaska office so that
    its other programs will not be impacted?
        Answer. The BLM expected some interest in tracts with high oil and
    gas potential, and less interest on a few of the low potential tracts.
    The number of bids received and the tracts receiving bids exceeded our
    expectations. If this new leasing results in increased discoveries, we
    anticipate an additional workload in development and compliance
    activities but currently the program is working within its budget
    constraints and is effectively balancing its priorities.
                                      gpra
        Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. The Director has produced a 5-Year Strategic Plan which
    lays out long-term direction for BLM, as well as Annual Performance
    Plans which define performance measures and establish target levels of
    accomplishment for each measure. These plans have been incorporated
    into the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget request to the Congress.
    The BLM's budget documents anticipated performance levels for major
    program areas.
        Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. Top-level managers have program and strategic goals
    incorporated into their performance reviews and evaluations. Senior
    Executives are also held accountable for accomplishing the work
    identified in the annual budget. Since 1997, BLM has published Annual
    Reports documenting performance related to mission goals, stewardship
    assets, and finances. BLM is beginning to provide incentives for
    improving employee and organizational performance, exemplified in part
    by holding offices responsible for meeting performance goals via
    budgetary incentives.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. BLM developed a Management Information System to track and
    report performance and customer satisfaction information. This
    information will be available to all managers, and can be used to
    compare performance within organizational units. These data can be
    accessed throughout the year, enabling the BLM to inquire about areas,
    offices, or organizations that are achieving below expectations.
    Performance-based information has raised the BLM's goals from measuring
    completion of project work to evaluating whether the project work is
    effective in helping the BLM reach its program or mission goals.
    Performance measures and data collection improvements will be completed
    over the next few years to provide better management information which
    can affect decision-making.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. Budget increases for initiatives and programs were tied to
    performance goals in the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan.
    Funding requests were illustrated with expected changes in performance
    and workload accomplishments. Where funding increases were requested,
    programs showed corresponding improvements in performance. Where
    funding was level and technologies, automation, or process efficiencies
    themselves could not improve BLM's ability to improve performance,
    performance was shown to be level or declining.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plans?
        Answer. BLM has made an effort to tie funding to performance goals
    and the work needed to achieve these goals. This has had an effect of
    focusing program work to those areas that have the greatest impacts on
    improving performance. The implementation of a Management Information
    System has enhanced the agency's ability to track work, financial data,
    and accomplishments, resulting in a better understanding of the
    linkages and how to direct funding to get the best results. In some
    areas, process improvements and organizational changes have been
    implemented to improve performance. In other cases, organizations have
    had to shift work priorities to achieve performance targets.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performance goals?
        Answer. BLM's budget structure often does not directly relate to
    performance goals or performance measures/results. It is more directly
    related to programs, work processes, or outputs. The BLM has initiated
    an Activity Based Costing (ABC) process to help break down the costs of
    achieving individual activities and tasks. From this information BLM
    believes it can roll up these costs to better reflect the achievement
    of specific performance goals and/or measures.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. As BLM gains experience in the use of ABC they may develop
    recommendations to modify its budget structure to improve the linkages
    between budget development and budget execution. At this time BLM is
    not recommending changes.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. At this time, only one or two measures have not yet
    established a baseline. BLM is working on these few measures with hopes
    of obtaining the required information by the end of 1999.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. Data collection is currently underway for all measures. BLM
    is increasing the reliability of all measures by improving the data
    specifications which define the required accuracy and boundaries for
    data collection. This is a continual improvement process. In some
    cases, new goals and measures are being considered for which data is
    more reliable and the measures can better drive management decisions.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding request take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance?
        Answer. Program funding is directly related to BLM's ability to
    accomplish work. The effectiveness of this work is evaluated using
    actual performance information. Actual performance data will aid in
    identifying opportunities for BLM programs or offices to improve
    efficiencies or where additional funding is required to achieve desired
    outcomes. BLM will continue to be challenged in directing its limited
    funding to strategic mission accomplishments based on their ability to
    get the most performance for the least amount of funding. Actual
    performance data along with financial records and management leadership
    will be used to re-direct future funding requests.
                                 central hazmat
        Question. On how many sites is the department conducting activities
    funded by the Central Hazardous Materials program? How many of these
    sites are on the National Priority List?
        Answer. The Department is funding work at eighteen sites. Six of
    these sites are on the NPL with one site likely to be added in the next
    year. Of the six NPL sites, the Department is listed as the lead agency
    at three sites.
        Question. What are the agency's estimates of the costs to clean up
    all the sites it is responsible for on the NPL? Where are they located?
        Answer. Current estimates for the completion of cleanup of NPL
    sites where the Department is the lead agency range from $83.9 million
    to $88 million. These sites are located at the Great Swamp NWR
    (Operable Unit 3) in New Jersey, the Crab Orchard NWR in Illinois, and
    the closed Lee Acres Landfill in New Mexico. Cost recovery has been
    completed at Great Swamp Operable Unit 3. Cost recovery and cost
    sharing work is on-going at the remaining two sites.
        Question. What efforts is the department making in terms of
    collecting funds from other Principal Responsible Parties?
        Answer. The Department has substantially expanded its efforts to
    the recovery of response costs from potentially responsible parties
    (PRPs) having liability for some or all of the response costs incurred
    in cleaning up releases on Departmental lands. The Office of the
    Solicitor has created a separate branch, the Branch of Federal
    Facilities Compliance (BFFC), to spearhead the legal efforts associated
    with recovering costs or persuading PRPs to perform cleanup at the
    direction of the Department. This effort includes close work both with
    the Department of Justice( DOJ) and with the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and to pursue PRPs. Our efforts are
    currently focused on the Cuyahoga NRA, OH and the Crab Orchard NWR, IL.
        Case development or negotiations with PRPs is underway at more than
    a dozen sites under the jurisdiction of the Department. In addition,
    preliminary investigations to identify PRPs have been or are being
    initiated by the bureaus at dozens of other sites around the country
    including abandoned mines, landfills, and other hazardous substance
    release sites. To facilitate these investigations, BFFC staff have been
    providing training and consultation to bureau field staffs.
        Many of these efforts show great promise for success but the time
    frame for realizing such success is long, often measured in years. It
    is premature to evaluate these efforts in terms of only monetary
    results accomplished. Groundwork laid by the PRP pursuit efforts
    involving consistent legal support and policy guidance, better record
    keeping and enhanced cost estimation are all necessary steps needed to
    ensure future success and concomitantly are the stepping stones for
    overall program success.
        Question. How successful have these efforts been?
        Answer. To date, settlements with PRPs have resulted in savings to
    the Department of over $40 million. In addition, negotiations with PRPs
    are ongoing at several sites where the Department's objective is to
    reach settlements that combined will result in further savings of
    millions of dollars.
        Question. What are the Department's estimates for the amount of
    money that can be collected from PRPs in future years?
        Answer. The Department does not have an estimate of the amount of
    money that can be collected from PRPs. The variables that affect this
    figure include: (1) what costs we will incur; (2) what sites have
    viable PRPs; and (3) what percentage of costs at each of those sites we
    will recover from PRPs.
        Question. Could the bulk of the necessary cleanup work ever be paid
    for through monies received from PRPs? If so, when?
        Answer. No, the Department does not believe that funds from PRPs
    will ever eliminate the need for cleanup funds through direct
    appropriations. It is the policy of the Department that the polluter
    pays for site contamination. This policy includes Departmental
    oversight costs as well as the actual cleanup cost. All settlements
    must be approved by DOJ. Aggressive PRP pursuit and settlement
    negotiations have resulted in savings of over $35 million.
    Appropriations since the CHF was established are $57 million, so the
    work completed to date totals approximately $92 million.
        In addition to the recovery of funds, the Department also pursues
    cost contribution actions against PRPs. Cost contribution claims must
    be proved by demonstrating the specific percentage of liability is
    properly allocated to each PRP, based on a variety of factors related
    to each PRPs involvement at a site. Given the fact that at many
    Department sites, PRP activity occurred decades ago and the
    availability of records or other proof is often limited or nonexistent,
    this is a more demanding, time consuming and costly approach to site
    liability allocation than is required of EPA. The DOJ has advised the
    Department that this approach will be required at most CHF projects due
    to our landowner status.
        The goal of the Department is to increase the percentage of savings
    relative to appropriation. However, we are not able to say that the
    bulk of the cleanup funds will be received from PRPs at this point in
    the program due to the significant variables mentioned previously.
                                    general
        The Subcommittee has received information that current facilities
    for the agency's Arizona Strip District are inadequate.
        Question. Are there current plans to improve or replace those
    facilities? What would be the estimated cost?
        Answer. The administrative facilities for the Arizona Strip
    District are in St. George, Utah. These facilities are new and are
    meeting all administrative needs. There are currently no plans to
    improve or replace these facilities.
        Question. If the City of Fredonia constructed office space for the
    Forest Service to be leased by the North Kaibab Ranger District, would
    a similar arrangement for the BLM as part of a government complex be
    considered favorably? What, if any, problems would there be with such
    as arrangement?
        Answer. As stated above, the headquarters for the Arizona Strip
    District are new and are located in St. George, Utah. In addition, BLM
    has another administrative site in the City of Kanab, which administers
    public lands in southern Utah; additionally, the U.S. Forest Service
    has an existing facility in Fredonia. Typically, administrative support
    for the BLM's Arizona Strip District is provided by either one of these
    facilities, therefore the BLM does not see a need for a separate
    facility in Fredonia at this time.
                          Minerals Management Service
                              offsetting receipts
        Over one-half of the Mineral Management Service's budget for fiscal
    year 2000 is derived from offsetting receipts which come from rents
    collected by the agency on federal leases. The Department has proposed
    increasing the existing cap on these receipts in fiscal year 2000 from
    $100 million to $124 million.
        Question. How have lower oil prices affected the agency's
    projections for how much it will collect in offsetting receipts for
    fiscal year 2000? Will the agency collect more than $124 million?
        Answer. At the time of the initial estimate, $124 million seemed a
    reasonable target. Recently oil prices have been very uncertain. This
    was evident at the recent Gulf of Mexico sale which resulted in $3.57
    million in additional offsetting collections as compared to $17.14
    million from the same sale last year and $18.9 million from the sale
    the year before. After adjusting for the decline in oil prices and
    incorporating data from the most recent Gulf of Mexico sale, MMS now
    projects offsetting collections in fiscal year 2000 to be approximately
    $115 million. The actual amount of the shortfall could be affected by
    future sales.
        Question. How would the agency make-up the shortfall in its budget
    if the cap on offsetting receipts is raised to $124 million? What
    agency activities would be affected the most?
        Answer. If the projected shortfall of approximately $9 million
    materializes, we would delay implementation of the Royalty
    Reengineering Initiative and reduce environmental studies.
                                   valuation
        Question. What is the current status of discussions between
    industry and the agency regarding proposed valuation regulations? What
    is the likelihood that a resolution can be reached concerning valuation
    and the duty to market which satisfies all stakeholders?
        Answer. In response to many requests from Members of Congress and
    parties interested in moving the process forward to publish a final
    rule, on March 4, 1999, the Secretary announced plans to reopen the
    comment period for the Federal oil valuation rule.
        On March 12, MMS reopened the comment period for 30 days until
    April 12. MMS also announced three public workshops to discuss
    resolution of outstanding issues on the rule. The workshops were held
    in Houston, Texas on March 24, in Albuquerque, New Mexico on March 25,
    and in Washington, D.C. on April 6 and 7. Representatives from
    industry, States, and public interest groups all presented various
    proposals at these workshops. On April 12, MMS extended the comment
    period an additional 15 days to April 27.
        Now that the comment period has ended, we will evaluate and give
    consideration to all of the proposals and comments received at the
    workshops and in the written comments. However, until we finish our
    review of all of the comments submitted, we cannot comment on the
    likelihood that a resolution can be reached that satisfies all
    stakeholders. We remain committed to assuring that the American
    taxpayer receives full market value for its mineral resources.
        The fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations extended
    the moratorium on the valuation of crude oil until October 1, 1999.
        Question. What impact has the agency's decision to extend the
    comment period had on the time frames for issuing the new valuation
    regulations?
        Answer. The result of MMS's decision to extend the comment period
    resulted in review of additional comments received. Furthermore, the
    fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations extended the
    moratorium, which will delay publishing another proposed rule until
    fiscal year 2000.
        Question. What are the agency's current projections on how much
    additional money will be paid in the form of royalties by industry
    under the new regulations? How has the lower price of oil affected
    these estimates, if at all?
        Answer. In its February 1998 proposal, MMS's analysis of 1996 data
    showed the proposed Federal oil valuation rule would have had an
    economic impact of approximately $66 million in increased royalty
    collections annually. These estimates were based on a comparison of
    Federal oil royalties received in 1996 for both onshore and offshore
    production to those we would have expected under the provisions of the
    February 1998 proposal. The Indian oil valuation rule would have an
    annual impact of approximately $4 million as estimated by a similar
    comparison.
        The lower price of oil has not impacted this estimate because the
    difference between market prices and the posted prices used by industry
    to pay their royalties has remained relatively fixed as prices have
    dropped. Regardless, we are pleased for the domestic petroleum industry
    to see that oil prices have rebounded in recent weeks.
        Question. What specific measures is the agency taking to help
    producers most affected by low oil prices? Are any other measures under
    consideration?
        Answer. MMS issued a proposed rule on January 12, 1999, that will
    provide six relief options for marginal properties. This rule will save
    industry over $1.2 million per year in reporting costs alone. On
    February 4, 1999, the Department announced that it would grant relief
    to small oil operators producing on public lands by allowing them to
    suspend operations for up to two years without losing their leases.
        The MMS has updated two Notices to Lessees (NTL) to help the
    domestic industry adjust to and survive low prices. By issuing the two
    NTL's, MMS has taken two important steps to ease the number of early
    abandonments and to lower the threshold needed to qualify for royalty
    relief.
        For the second time in five months, MMS lowered price forecasts
    used by existing leaseholders that apply for deepwater royalty relief.
    Fields in water deeper than 200 meters in the Central and Western Gulf
    of Mexico (GOM), that demonstrate economic need at these prices,
    qualify for suspension of royalty payments. MMS has reduced its 1999
    estimate price to better reflect prices companies are currently
    experiencing.
        MMS has revised its guidelines for those applying for deepwater and
    end-of-life royalty relief. In addition, MMS has identified the need
    for relief outside these formal programs. Under the formal process, for
    instance, a lessee who has invested significant resources to lower
    production costs would be required to wait at least a year before
    applying for end-of-life royalty relief. Under the new approach, a
    lessee who has made a commitment of capital and meets additional
    criteria would be able to apply immediately during this period of low
    oil prices. End-of-life royalty relief and exceptional circumstance
    relief are aimed at situations where resources would be prematurely
    abandoned without the relief being granted.
        MMS is now paying interest to lessees when they overpay royalties.
    MMS issued a proposed rule on the appeals process on January 12, 1999.
    MMS is also revamping its appeals process to streamline it, resolve
    disputes within 33 months, and allow lessees to self-bond.
        MMS will continue its dialogue with oil and gas operators about how
    best to deal with low oil price environment and is analyzing other
    actions for possible adoption.
                                  destin dome
        Question. What is the current status of the Destin Dome project
    located off the Alabama and Florida coastlines? When will the coastal
    zone management determination be finalized?
        Answer. The MMS will complete the draft EIS on the Destin Dome
    project in July 1999. The draft EIS will be filed with EPA in July/
    August 1999 and released to the public. The public hearings on the EIS
    will be held in August/September 1999.
        The State of Florida's coastal zone review was received by MMS on
    February 18, 1998. The State objected to Chevron's consistency
    findings. Chevron appealed the State's objection to NOAA on April 3,
    1998. The State filed a request with NOAA on May 6, 1998, to hold a
    public hearing on the objection. The proposed hearing is tentatively
    scheduled for the fall of 1999 in Pensacola, FL. NOAA published a new
    Federal Register Notice advising that the public comment period will be
    extended until 30 days following the appeal hearing. NOAA will accept
    comments within 30 days of the appeal public hearing. A date for a
    final decision on the State's Coastal Zone Management objection is
    unknown.
        Question. What is the State of Florida's position on this project?
    How has the agency worked with the State of Florida on this issue?
        Answer. The State has objected to the project and has found it
    inconsistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. The State's
    finding of inconsistency was based on (1) the lack of sufficient
    information and analyses, (2) insufficient time to review responses to
    the State's earlier requests for additional information, (3) failure to
    supply requested information, and (4) inconsistencies with provisions
    of Florida Statutes. Florida laws enacted in 1989/1990 prevent oil and
    gas activities in State territorial waters. In 1991, Florida adopted a
    policy to prevent oil and gas activities within 100 miles of its coasts
    due to the potential for impacts to marine, coastal, land and economic
    resources.
        The MMS consulted with the State and Chevron in December 1997 in an
    attempt to get all parties to agree to a revised CZM consistency time
    frame. However, agreement could not be reached. Subsequently, the MMS
    has consulted with the State throughout the preparation of the draft
    EIS on technical issues of concern and responded to numerous questions
    raised on every aspect of the project.
        Question. What, if any, estimates does the agency have for the
    total gas reserves located on this lease? If fully developed, what
    would be the expected royalty income to the United States from this
    project?
        Answer. Destin Dome unit consists of 11 blocks, of which 2 have
    been drilled. Preliminary mapping indicates resource and reserve
    potential of between 425 billion cubic feet and 3 trillion cubic feet
    of natural gas. Our estimate for royalty income, over the life of the
    project (at \1/6\ royalty and between $1.75 and $2.00/million cubic
    feet), is between $12 5 million and $1.0 billion.
                            international activities
        Question. The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes an increase
    of $250,000 to participate in international fora. What specific
    conferences and what international organizations does the agency plan
    to participate in during fiscal year 2000? What activities will this
    additional money pay for?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2000 funds will be used to participate in
    meetings of the International Organization for Standards (ISO).
        In August 1998, MMS became an active participant in the U.S.
    Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO Technical Committee 67
    (Materials, Equipment and Offshore Structures for Petroleum and Natural
    Gas Industries).
        In fiscal year 2000 we plan to participate in the ISO Subcommittees
    dealing with Pipeline Transportation (SC2), Drilling and Completion
    Fluids and Cements (SC3), Drilling and Production Equipment (SC4), and
    Offshore Structures (SC7), as well as Line Pipe (SC1), Casing, Tubing,
    and Drill Pipe (SC5), and Processing, Equipment and Systems (SC6).
        In addition, the budget request will support our participation in
    conferences and workshops for other standards-developing organizations
    and International Fora including the International Maritime
    Organization (IMO) and the London Convention. Issues having a direct
    impact on U.S. offshore oil and gas operations, such as standards for
    drilling mud discharges, platform removal requirements, and Floating
    Production Storage and Offloading facilities are currently being
    discussed in these fora.
        Question. To what extent does the agency currently participate in
    such international organizations? How much is spent? What are the
    particular benefits to the U.S. government and to industry of MMS
    participation?
        Answer. MMS' participation in the ISO has been limited in the past
    due to budget constraints. As a result, MMS has not always been able to
    ensure that a U.S. perspective is considered as international standards
    have been developed. MMS incorporates standards into our regulations to
    address changes in offshore oil and gas technology as appropriate.
    Hence, MMS must participate in the meetings of the ISO in order to
    ensure that these standards address U.S. operating requirements.
    Several other agencies within the U.S. Government, such as the Coast
    Guard and the Department of Energy, have specific monies appropriated
    for these types of international activities.
        The MMS believes it is critical to participate in international
    fora such as the International Maritime Organization and the London
    Dumping Convention. As we addressed in our previous response, the
    issues being discussed in these fora have a direct impact on U.S.
    offshore oil and gas operations.
        Question. The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget states that it will
    use $250,000 from data conversion funds to pay for international
    activities. What will be the impact on the data conversion efforts? How
    long will these conversion activities be extended because of the
    decrease in funds?
        Answer. Progress is being made on the data conversion efforts. The
    most complex effort focuses on correcting historical well data. Since
    the initial estimates were made, MMS has found the project to be much
    more complicated and controversial than first expected. Consequently, a
    contract was issued for a pilot effort to further scope out the
    problems, examine MMS processes, and develop a statement of work for
    the full contract. Since that time, MMS has integrated the results of
    that pilot effort into a proposal for a full contract. We anticipate
    issuing a procurement solicitation to determine qualified bidders in
    May/June 1999. Thus, MMS is satisfied that redirecting $250,000 in
    fiscal year 2000 is viable. At this time, it is premature to predict
    how long, or if, the conversion activities would be extended because of
    redirecting $250,000 in fiscal year 2000. Any extension in the project
    may end up being more a result of the complexities of the project
    rather than a result of redirecting $250,000 for international
    activities in fiscal year 2000.
                        marine minerals research center
        The agency proposes eliminating funding for the marine mineral
    research center at the University of Mississippi.
        Question. Why is funding for this program being eliminated when
    much of the focus of the research at the university involves deep water
    issues which appear to be increasingly important? Isn't work being done
    at the university helpful in learning about important issues relating
    to deepwater development in the Gulf of Mexico?
        Answer. The Marine Minerals Research Centers (MMRCs) were
    reauthorized under the Marine Minerals Resources Research Act of 1996,
    and placed under oversight and management of the Department of the
    Interior. The MMRC at the University of Mississippi was funded in the
    amount of $600,000 in fiscal year 1999. The mission of the MMRC is to
    conduct research on the exploration and extraction of minerals from the
    seabeds of the continental shelves, deep ocean, and arctic regions,
    including deepwater research.
        The MMS recognizes the importance of the investigations and
    technological development that this center pursues, particularly the
    longer term research. However, due to higher research priorities for
    oil and gas exploration and extraction MMS is proposing to eliminate
    MMRC funding in fiscal year 2000.
                                 reengineering
        The agency's budget proposes a large increase to support its
    reengineering efforts.
        Question. How is this effort proceeding? Are all the scheduled
    deadlines being met? Are any unanticipated issues arising?
        Answer. The Reengineering Initiative is proceeding consistent with
    the project implementation action plan and schedule. The acquisition
    strategy and approach being used has been well received by the vendor
    community. Contract award is scheduled for September 1999 for the
    financial system and relational database management system. Completion
    of the installation is scheduled for September 2001. Procurement action
    to acquire the compliance component will begin in fall 1999.
        To date, MMS has not experienced any unanticipated issues.
        Question. What are the agency's current estimates of how soon this
    effort will pay for itself through more efficient, accurate collection
    of royalties? Will the reengineering effort reduce the costs of
    collection to MMS? If so, how? And how much?
        Answer. MMS estimates that upon completion, the investment in RMP
    systems modernization can be recovered in two years. Expected benefits
    of approximately $19 million annually will be realized through
    increased revenues and operational cost savings. The operational cost
    savings components of the benefit estimates are expected in the areas
    of simplified reporting and improved systems efficiencies. Simplified
    reporting is expected to reduce MMS costs by approximately $1.5 million
    annually. With the implementation of simplified reporting changes, MMS
    estimates significant improvements in overall reporting efficiency, and
    a reduction in reporting burden to royalty payors of 40 percent. Upon
    full implementation, improved systems efficiencies are expected to
    reduce MMS costs by approximately $2 million annually and increase
    revenue collection by approximately $15 million. An integrated
    accounting system that would eliminate many stand alone, personal
    computer based, applications and a fully deployed relational database
    management system are the major contributors to the projected costs
    savings.
                                royalty-in-kind
        Question. How are the agency's royalty-in-kind projects proceeding?
    What, if any, conclusions can be drawn from the pilots to date?
        Answer. MMS's royalty-in-kind projects are going well and are
    proceeding on schedule. To date we have sold crude oil in Wyoming in
    two successive auctions and moved gas from section 8(g) leases to
    offshore Texas. While it is too early to draw conclusions, one
    important message that is being demonstrated by the pilots is that
    royalties from leases with small and marginal production, and oil
    production not connected to pipeline systems, are clearly unattractive
    for the Federal government to take in kind. Further, in the limited
    cases where the logistics are attractive, the Federal government can
    realize some benefit by delivering natural gas to Federal facilities
    for direct consumption.
        Question. Under what circumstances does RIK make good economic
    sense for the government? When, if ever, does it not?
        Answer. This is the question that the RIK pilot programs have been
    designed to help answer. Conceptually, since under RIK the government
    must bear costs now borne by the lessee, unless we can sell the
    production more effectively than the lessee, the Government will lose
    revenue. The ability to aggregate some of our production as well as the
    ability to sell our production further downstream may help to offset
    these higher costs. Until the pilots have run their course, however, we
    will not know whether these offsetting benefits exist, or if they do,
    whether they will be sufficient to prevent us from losing revenue. RIK
    can only make sense on a case by case, lease by lease, basis. If we
    have learned anything to date, it is that every circumstance is
    different and no generalized rules for RIK seem to apply. Flexibility,
    discretion, and choice are essential for a successful RIK program.
    Without them, RIK can not make good economic sense.
        Question. Wouldn't moving to an RIK system nationally resolve the
    current disputes concerning valuation for royalty purposes? What
    potential problems, if any, would there be if such a system were
    implemented nationally?
        Answer. The potential is that it would just replace one set of
    royalty disputes with others. Transportation cost issues would remain,
    and royalty revenue audits would be replaced by royalty production
    volume audits, as well as by audits of marketing contractors and others
    providing services to the Government necessary for RIK. The main
    potential problem, if an RIK system were implemented nationally, would
    be loss of revenue to the Nation. Based on what we have learned from
    our RIK pilot programs, a mandatory system across the Nation may not be
    economically viable.
                                sand and gravel
        The fiscal year 2000 budget states that charging a fee to Virginia
    Beach was the first time the Secretary used his discretionary authority
    to assess a fee.
        Question. Will this fee be charged to all future participants in
    the sand and gravel program?
        Answer. A fee of $198,000 was charged for the use of 1.1 million
    cubic yards of OCS sand to nourish Sandbridge Beach. Public Law 103-426
    authorizes MMS to negotiate agreements for the use of OCS sand and
    gravel, e.g., to support beach nourishment project construction, and to
    assess a fee for its use. Assessing a fee is discretionary, and the
    decision will be made on a case-specific basis, except that no fee is
    assessed against a Federal agency. MMS policy is to assess a fee
    consistent with the criteria established in the law, and exceptions are
    expected to occur only for limited circumstances. The precise case(s)
    for exceptions to a fee cannot be defined in advance because a judgment
    is required, for each situation, that either the public interest
    benefits from the use of OCS sand warrant no fee, or that a fee would
    be so burdensome as to prevent construction of an otherwis e acceptable
    project.
        Currently, in both the Senate and House versions of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999 (S. 507 and H.R. 1480) there is a
    provision that would prohibit MMS from assessing fees. S. 507 also
    provides for reimbursement for any fees paid to MMS (i.e., the fee paid
    by Virginia Beach).
        Question. What is the criteria for deciding to charge a fee and for
    determining the amount of the fee? How do these fees compare to what
    other owners of sand and gravel charge?
        Answer. Consistent with congressional intent, future requests for
    use of OCS sand will include fee assessments as part of the negotiated
    terms. As described above, any decision not to assess a fee would be
    based on specific circumstances, and would be limited.
        Public Law 103-426 provides direction that the assessment of a fee
    balance resource value with public interest served--the fee is to be
    ``based on an assessment of the value of the resources and the public
    interest served by promoting development of the resources.''
        In October 1997, MMS prepared, and distributed widely, guidelines
    on how we will determine fees. The guidelines were prepared as internal
    guidance for MMS employees, when negotiating agreements, but were also
    shared with the public to assist governmental sponsors with planning
    for project costs and funding. The guidelines were reviewed and found
    acceptable by the Secretary's OCS Policy Committee. Under the approach
    developed in the guidelines, assessment of fees first requires a
    determination of the resource value. A current estimate of market value
    is determined based on an assessment of what other owners of sand and
    gravel charge. But the law provides that the public interest served by
    the project also be considered in the determination. Therefore, MMS
    provides for adjustments to the estimated resource value to reflect
    public benefit from project construction, like hurricane and storm
    damage reduction, wetlands restoration, habitat restoration, etc. To
    reflect public benefits in the fee determination, the guidelines
    provide a discount for State and local government based on the same
    percentage (typically 65 percent) used to represent the congressionally
    mandated Federal share of the costs of shore protection project.
                                alaska projects
        Question. What is the current status of the Liberty and North Star
    projects in Alaska? Have all necessary permits been issued?
        Answer. The Northstar Project is still awaiting permits. The
    Northstar Production Island is located in State of Alaska waters, but
    the reservoir underlies both State and federal waters. The State of
    Alaska and the North Slope Borough have approved the project. The
    controlling permit to start construction is the Corps of Engineers
    (COE) 404 permit (dredge and fail). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    objected to the COE draft decision with regard to the pipeline route
    and elevated the decision to COE headquarters. The final COE decision
    was alternative two, which was the preferred British Petroleum
    Pipeline, a nd a 404 permit was issued.
        The MMS has begun to complete its process for the Development
    Production Plan and accompanying oil discharge contingency plan.
        EPA issued the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    (NPDES) on May 21, 1999, and the effective date is June 21, 1999.
        The Liberty Project and reservoir are entirely within OCS waters
    but with the pipeline routing going through State of Alaska waters and
    lands. BP submitted a Development Production Plan to the MMS in early
    1998. Because of the delays to Northstar, last fall BP asked that MMS
    delay issuance of the draft EIS until after decisions on Northstar.
    This month BPAmoco has delayed its estimated production startup for
    Liberty until 2003. MMS, the Corps of Engineers, and BPAmoco have
    decided to hold facilitated meetings with the permitting agencies to
    discuss development options for Liberty, especially regarding the
    pipeline designs, to try to ensure all issues are identified up front.
    Under this approach, the Draft EIS will be completed in late spring
    2000.
        Question. What other agencies are involved in the review of these
    projects? What, if any, obstacles remain for these projects to enter
    the production phase? What is expected royalty income for the United
    States from these projects?
        Answer. Federal agencies involved in the review of both projects
    include the Corps of Engineers (COE), EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the Minerals Management Service, and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service. State of Alaska agencies and the North Slope Borough
    are also involved in reviewing both projects. The COE was the lead
    federal agency for the Northstar EIS. MMS is the lead agency for the
    Liberty EIS.
        The Northstar Project must obtain permits from the COE to construct
    the gravel island and pipeline. All agencies concurred that the project
    and pipeline were safe; however, some disagreement existed on the
    routing of the pipeline. If the COE finally approves the BPAmoco plan
    and pipeline route, gravel island construction should proceed in the
    winter of 2000. If the COE chooses another pipeline route, the
    applicant will have to amend its plans, and the State and North Slope
    Borough will have to reopen their reviews of the new route.
        Liberty is still at the beginning of its permitting process.
    BPAmoco will need all State, Borough, and federal permits for the
    project. Some agencies have asked for a review of alternative pipeline
    designs for Liberty, and the facilitated process will be used to define
    options to review.
        Royalties from federal production at Northstar are estimated at $75
    million for the life of the field. Because these leases are within the
    8(g) zone, an estimated $20 million will be shared with the State of
    Alaska. Royalties from federal production at Liberty are $178 million.
    Because these leases are within the 8(g) zone, an estimated $48 million
    will be shared with the State of Alaska.
        Question. What are the agency's future expectations with respect to
    leasing in Alaska?
        Answer. MMS surveyed the industry in late 1998 regarding their
    views on Alaska leasing. The Beaufort Sea remains the area of most
    interest, especially the central Beaufort in the area closest to
    infrastructure. Because of the amount of development activity, State
    sales, and the NPRA sale, industry expressed interest in a one-year
    delay for the next OCS Beaufort Sale, and MMS will delay the sale to
    fiscal year 2002. The State of Alaska will continue to offer its
    Beaufort State waters for lease, and future federal sales can
    complement the areas offered by the State. Industry holds a good
    inventory of leases in State and Federal waters with a number of good
    prospects for development. MMS has and will continue to assist the BLM
    on lease management for the NPRA, and expects interest to continue.
        Companies expressed a longer term interest in Cook Inlet, the
    Chukchi Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska. They asked that these areas remain
    available in the next 5 Year Plan, but did not see a need for sales in
    these areas in the next few years. Thus MMS will postpone sales in
    these areas until the next 5 Year Plan.
                                deepwater issues
        Question. Given the complex issues related to deepwater drilling
    and production, what is the anticipated budgetary impact on the
    agency's Leasing and Environmental Assessment, and Environmental
    Studies program in the future? How do the costs of preparing a sale and
    providing all necessary review through the production stage in
    deepwater compare to costs for other sales?
        Answer. No impact is expected on the portion of our operating
    budget devoted to conducting lease sales. Lease sales are traditionally
    ``area-wide'' in scope, and this has not changed due to deepwater
    leasing. However, increased lease administration workload due to the
    great increase in leased tracts, and the more complex issues associated
    with industry business practices for these expensive ventures, may
    strain our budgetary resources.
    Environmental assessment
        The complexity and increased level of activity of oil and gas
    activities in deep water have had considerable impact on the
    environmental assessment-related workload in the Gulf of Mexico OHS
    Region. Numerous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents are
    currently under preparation regarding deepwater activities. An
    Environmental Assessment (EA) is nearly completed that addresses
    activities unique to operations in deepwater, and a contract for
    preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has just been
    awarded to evaluate the potential impacts of the possible use of
    floating, production, and offloading systems (FPSO's) in the Gulf.
    Additional evaluations are needed for several major topics, including
    riserless drilling, fate and effects of potential oil spills from
    deepwater blowouts, chemical product usage, and the storage and
    offloading of hydrocarbons during initial well testing. These
    evaluations are expected to be prepared in-house, but are currently on
    hold due to workload constraints. The Office of Leasing and Environment
    in the Gulf of Mexico Region has recently reorganized to support
    efforts to re-engineer work processes for greater efficiency. As the
    re-engineered work processes mature, we hope to be able to resume work
    on these important environmental protection projects in addition to
    coordination and assessment of site-specific deepwater plans.
    Environmental studies program
        With the deepwater supplemental budget of $4,000,000 for fiscal
    year 1998, 14 new studies were started which focused on GOM deepwater
    issues. In fiscal year 1999, 8 new deepwater studies have been
    initiated for another $4,000,000. Elements are now in place for a
    strong deepwater program which provides information for our many NEPA
    responsibilities. But, following this initial effort, the cost of
    maintaining a maturing deepwater program will increase. A major
    deepwater physical oceanographic study of the processes of the slope
    and rise is in planning with estimated costs for funding exceeding $10
    million. An extensive deepwater benthic study will cost about $5
    million. Meeting our environmental responsibilities in deepwater areas
    will be a challenge given the expense of performing studies in that
    environment.
    Costs of preparing a sale
        As noted above, the costs for preparing a sale that includes
    deepwater tracts is virtually the same as the costs for preparing
    previous sales, since all sales since 1983 have been ``area-wide.''
        Operating costs for administering deepwater leases are the same as
    for other sales. But, the many leases and related activities
    (especially, bonds and assignments) due to the record-breaking,
    deepwater-focused sales of the last few years have increased our
    workload.
        There has been a significant increase in the data costs for
    deepwater lease sale tract evaluations compared to the costs associated
    with evaluation efforts on the shelf. This is due to the fact that deep
    water is a frontier area. In many cases no historical data is available
    with which to evaluate the area. The real problems come with the need
    for reprocessed seismic data (converting 2D data to 3D data) in subsalt
    areas of the deep water and the effort to identify which companies have
    reprocessed data. Additional time is needed for the evaluation of this
    reprocessed data.
    Costs of environmental reviews
        Assessing plans in deep water is more complex and more demanding in
    time and financial resources than for similar plans in shallow water
    where the agency has years of experience evaluating industry activity.
    Most of the additional cost of assessing plans in deep water is related
    to the increased cost of obtaining deepwater environmental data and
    information, and the additional time and effort required for staff to
    evaluate and understand the potential impacts associated with
    industry's use of new technology to operate in the harsher conditions
    of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
    Costs of operational reviews
        As a result of the significant differences and technological
    complexities of each facility and the fast tracking of each project in
    deep water, compared to similar activity on the Continental shelf, the
    agency now requires the submittal of Deepwater Operations Plans (DWOPs)
    for all projects in water depths greater than 1,000 feet and for all
    subsea completions. This three-part plan covers the life of the project
    from the conceptual phase of the project to final abandonment.
        In addition, the enormous cost of deepwater projects has led
    operators into a position which sometimes favors quick recovery of
    investment at the expense of long-term conservation considerations. To
    address this issue the agency now requires the submittal of
    Conservation Information Supplements with all DWOPs. Reviews of these
    documents require a broader and deeper knowledge and understanding of
    petroleum geology, geophysics, and engineering, as related to every
    facet of reservoir management, in order to ensure the conservation of
    petroleum resources.
        Due to the increased technology and costs associated with deepwater
    exploration and development, applications and formation of units have
    significantly increased. The passage of the Deepwater Royalty Relief
    Act (DWRRA) signed into law on November 28, 1995, has generated
    applications for deepwater royalty relief that require extensive
    reviews and evaluations. Co-development of deepwater leases and units
    has greatly complicated suspension of production reviews and approvals.
    In deepwater, significantly greater changes in pressure and temperature
    conditions occur during production; and hydrocarbons behave very
    differently, sometimes forming solids that cause uneven production.
    Therefore, production measurement and, consequently, the review of
    associated industry proposals are more complicated in deepwater leases.
    There are also policy issues, such as deep water royalty rate relief,
    to be considered in the review that make the review itself more
    complex.
        The impact of royalty relief associated with ``new'' leases in deep
    water has caused a significant increase in manpower needs associated
    with new field identification and evaluation. The field determination
    process in deep water is much more rigorous since the inception of the
    DWRRA, as there is increased scrutiny by oil and gas industry analysts
    of this determination process. The increased scrutiny is due to the
    enormous amount of royalty-free production (17.5 to 87.5 million
    barrels of oil equivalent depending on water depth) associated with
    each field determination. As a result of the significance of these
    field determinations, the deepwater fields are evaluated much more
    thoroughly using 3-D seismic data and digital well logs.
                                  inspections
        Question. How does the increased level of activity in deep water
    affect the agency's inspection program? How does the number of
    incidents of noncompliance (INC's) in deep water compare to other
    areas? With more activity in deep water which is farther offshore, will
    more inspectors be needed to maintain current safety levels?
        Answer. In contrast to shallow water production activity on the
    Continental shelf, where procedures are now routine and equipment is
    ``off the shelf'', deepwater technology is continuously evolving. The
    hardware and procedures to drill, produce, and ultimately abandon
    operations in deepwater represents the most advanced and unique
    technology that the industry currently employs. The review, approval,
    and inspection of this new technology demands state- of-the-art
    training for all those currently involved in the operational review
    process. Because of the evolving nature of these deepwater projects,
    additional training will be necessary as the technology continues to
    advance. Staffing requirements will also necessarily evolve to keep
    pace with the deepwater trends. As the number and complexity of these
    deepwater facilities continues to increase, the skill base of the
    organization will need to be assessed to insure that, not only is there
    a sufficient number of properly trained employees, but also that the
    agency skill mix is appropriate. The use and implementation of this new
    technology demands new technical specialties, and MMS must insure that
    these specialties are captured in the workforce.
        To date, the number of incidents of noncompliance for deepwater
    activity is much less than for similar types of operations on the
    shelf. The newer and more automated facilities in deep water are also
    staffed at higher levels as compared to facilities on the shelf.
        However, as reflected in MMS's budget request for fiscal year 2000,
    we do need some additional resources for the inspection effort,
    including an additional helicopter. Deepwater facilities are farther
    from shore requiring longer flight times. This degrades inspector
    efficiency because significantly more time is consumed in transit to
    the remote locations. The larger, more complex, facilities often
    require a team of inspectors versus single inspectors, and deepwater
    platforms are often in less densely populated areas without an existing
    infrastructure. This results in additional transit time between
    structures. At the same time, the increase in activity and the remote
    location of facilities in deep water has led to new inspection
    strategies including sampling inspections and overnight stays of
    inspectors at deep water facilities to increase inspection efficiency
    and effectiveness. As the number of facilities increase in deep water,
    it may again become necessary to increase inspection personnel and to
    acquire additional/upgraded helicopter resources to accomplish the
    agency mission.
                                      gpra
        Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance based management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
        Answer. The Director of MMS has continually demonstrated the
    leadership and commitment necessary for effective implementation of the
    Government Performance and Results Act. The Director has established a
    standing GPRA team to coordinate and facilitate the MMS transition to
    performance based management. This team, comprised of managers and
    staff from across MMS, is guided and directed by the MMS Quality
    Council (MMS Director and Associate Directors) in implementing GPRA and
    performance management. The Director's immediate involvement has
    provided the leadership that is critical to successful performance
    management. Our approach at MMS is driven top down as well as bottom up
    with involvement and accountability being created at all levels
    throughout the organization.
        Question. How are the agency senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. GPRA annual performance goals have been included as a
    performance element in the Senior Executive Service Performance
    Agreements for 1999. Through these agreements, the senior executives
    will be held accountable for achieving GPRA results as part of their
    overall performance review. We are currently evaluating the development
    of subordinate measures to the GPRA goals that can be used to further
    cascade down and hold managers and employees accountable for their
    contributions to the performance of the organization.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. The MMS is continuing to gain more experience and a broader
    understanding of performance based management and is making real
    progress in the use of performance information in managing the agency.
    For example, the Royalty Management Program (RMP) has developed and
    began using a performance matrix in fiscal year 1997. The matrix
    includes GPRA measures and other measures that managers find useful in
    managing the program. The information is updated and used monthly by
    the RMP Quality Steering Committee to manage resources and monitor
    progress toward annual goals. In addition, MMS is gathering available
    performance information and data, on a quarterly basis, on each of the
    goals contained in its fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan. This
    information forms the basis for discussion among senior managers in the
    Bureau and at the Department on progress toward achieving our annual
    goals. This active monitoring highlights where we are exceeding our
    goals and where we may be falling behind and provides the opportunity
    to make mid-course management corrections.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request and annual
    performance plan, MMS attempted to link program performance to budget
    changes. Each mission goal section contains a discussion of the impact
    of fiscal year 2000 budget changes on the accomplishment of that
    particular goal. For example, in fiscal year 2000 MMS, in conjunction
    with its reengineering initiative, is requesting funding to upgrade
    RMP's information technology systems. The systems currently in use are
    too old and inflexible to efficiently support redesigned business
    processes or changing mission requirements such as expanded Royalty-in-
    Kind programs. The mix of aging mainframe-based systems and substantial
    changes needed to support reengineered business processes represents a
    major risk to future systems reliability and operational stability.
    These factors jeopardize the programs ability to meet its performance
    objectives for accurate and timely disbursement of receipts and for
    compliance with royalty regulations. Therefore, additional funding was
    requested to upgrade the technology and systems to support these goals.
        The GAO review of the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan and
    budget highlighted, as an effective portrayal of resources and
    performance, the MMS effort to identify funding and full time
    equivalent staffing for each performance goal and provide a narrative
    that identified how the resources were being used. For example, in
    support of the goal for ensuring safe mineral development on the outer
    continental shelf, the budget justification was explicit that
    approximately $45.469 million and 338 full time equivalents (FTEs) with
    backgrounds in petroleum engineering, offshore production and
    operations, geology, computer and statistical analysis, management, and
    various support services were required to successfully fulfill the
    programmatic results. The GAO complimented MMS's descriptive
    information relating resources to goals.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plans?
        Answer. Keeping in mind that fiscal year 1999 is the first year
    that a strategic plan and performance goals are in place under the
    Government Performance and Results Act, the MMS, like other agencies,
    is beginning to identify opportunities and make changes in its
    processes and programs to better address its performance goals. The
    offshore program has established teams to look at issues that effect
    our goals. For instance, an oil price team has been working to
    determine the effect of low oil prices on fair market value. Also, in
    support of our environmental and safety goals MMS is evaluating ways to
    disqualify operators who have traditionally demonstrated poor safety
    and environmental records. Additionally, MMS is developing a Safety and
    Environmental Program (SEMP) which is designed to give companies more
    latitude in the manner in which they meet safety targets while still
    meeting the outcomes needed for MMS to achieve its safety and
    environmental goals. The Royalty Management Program is developing
    operational models that will reengineer their processes to directly
    support their strategic goals. The Royalty Management Program has
    established partnerships with key stakeholders to allow their
    participation in the development of reengineered compliance and asset
    management processes.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performance goals?
        Answer. The MMS annual performance plan for fiscal year 2000 links
    the goals contained in the plan to the budget activities by using a
    ``GPRA program activities structure'' which was developed by
    aggregating and disaggregating the program activities included in the
    P&F schedules against the GPRA program activities used in the annual
    plan. The GPRA program activities used by MMS were the MMS mission
    goals. Each discussion of a mission goal in the annual performance plan
    includes a listing of related budget accounts and an estimate of the
    total aggregate funding for that goal.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. Currently there is not a one-to-one relationship between
    budget accounts and activities in the budget justification and the
    goals contained in the annual performance plan. This lack of alignment
    results in budget accounts supporting multiple goals and goals being
    accomplished with funding from several budget accounts. Realigning the
    budget account and activity structure with the goals contained in the
    strategic and annual plans is premature at this time. However, this
    linkage is made in the annual performance plan as explained in the
    previous answer.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. The MMS has focused over the past year on making sure that
    data for all measures contained in the fiscal year 1999 annual
    performance plan will be available and reliable. Baselines have been
    established for 100 percent of the 22 measures contained in the plan.
    MMS has worked extensively to put the methodology and systems in place
    to gather, analyze, and report its performance information in an
    accurate and timely manner. At this time MMS anticipates having
    reliable data for all its goals available in time for the March 2000
    report. However, measures relative to oil and gas production and
    reserves as well as oil spills and accidents from offshore operations
    rely on external sources for information. While delays are not
    anticipated in getting this information from the external sources, a
    prolonged delay would affect our ability to report complete information
    for a few goals.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. The data is expected to be available.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance?
        Answer. In its first GPRA strategic plan, published in fiscal year
    1997, the MMS established long term targets for each of its goals. As
    we begin to get actual performance data, we will evaluate each goal and
    our ability to achieve the targeted performance, not only for that
    year, but also for future years. Future targets, as well as future
    resource needs, will be evaluated and adjusted based on these
    evaluations. Future funding requests will reflect the need to shift
    funding resources to ensure effective performance.
                            Office of Surface Mining
                                 aml increases
        The budget justification for the Office of Surface Mining states
    that the singular highlight of its fiscal year 2000 budget is the
    Administration's proposal for a multi-year effort to fund the Abandoned
    Mine Lands (AML) program at a level commensurate with fee receipts by
    2003. The agency proposes a $25 million increase for these activities
    for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. What level of increases in the AML program does the
    agency forecast over the next three years to get to the level of
    receipts?
        Answer. We project that fee receipts will be approximately $317
    million in fiscal year 2003. This is approximately a $100 increase over
    the fiscal year 2000 request. While budgets for the out-years have not
    yet been developed, one scenario would be for approximately equal
    increases over the next three years to reach the level of fee receipts.
        Question. Will proposed increases in the AML program over the next
    three years mean that the agency will propose decreases in other
    programs as an offset? If so, what activities will be affected and to
    what extent?
        Answer. It is not clear at this time how proposed increases in the
    AML program will be funded in fiscal year 2001-2003 or if offsets will
    be necessary. If offsets are needed the Department will determine the
    necessary offsets as each fiscal year's budget request is developed
    based on a review of all accounts to determine where offsets can best
    be made.
        The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget justification states that $22
    million of $25 million increase for AML reclamation program will be
    directed to states and tribes doing projects that support the
    President's Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP).
        Question. What criteria are used to determine whether a project is
    a Clean Water Action Plan project?
        Answer. An AML project that would correct conditions such as acid
    mine drainage from abandoned gob piles, sedimentation of streams as
    waste piles erode, and acid mine drainage formed as water enters
    underground mine workings and emerges as a pollutant, as well as other
    of the CWAP key action items, would be a project that is consistent
    with the President's Clean Water Action Plan. A State/Tribe would state
    in its grant documents that the increased funds would be used for such
    projects.
        Question. Would any states or tribes be ineligible for a part of
    this increase because they do not currently have CWAP projects. If so
    what states or tribes?
        Answer. Every time a State or Tribe cleans up an AML site there is
    a positive aspect on associated waters. Moreover, based on a staff
    review of unreclaimed sites listed in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory
    System, and discussions with States and Tribes, we believe that all
    have eligible problem sites that could be reclaimed in support of the
    President's Clean Water Action Plan. Thus, we anticipate that all State
    or Tribe AML programs will be eligible for a part of this requested
    increase.
        The Subcommittee is concerned about the funding of the Small
    Operator Assistance Program (SOAP).
        Question. What level of funding is necessary to fully support this
    program for fiscal year 2000? How many operators will receive funding
    from this program in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. We believe that we will have sufficient funds in fiscal
    year 2000 to support 170 operators expected to request assistance. The
    funds will be a combination of: (1) the requested appropriation of $1.5
    million; (2) recoveries from closed out projects; and (3) unexpended
    funds from the fiscal year 1999 approved reprogramming of $2.08
    million. Further, if necessary, adjustments will be made in some grant
    periods. With the recently approved reprogramming, OSM will obligate
    more than $4 million in SOAP operational grants to States during fiscal
    year 1999. These grant awards, obligated during fiscal year 1999 but
    with budget periods lasting through part of fiscal year 2000, are
    expected to result in unexpended funds which will be used in fiscal
    year 2000. The fiscal year 2000 request of $1.5 million plus
    anticipated recoveries and carryover are projected to total
    approximately $4 million, sufficient to fund the program until fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. What are the agency's projections for the next three
    years in terms of number of operators who will participate in the
    program and the amount of money needed to fully fund it?
        Answer. The numbers of operators expected to be assisted are:

            Fiscal year                                            Operators
    2000..............................................................   170
    2001..............................................................   172
    2002..............................................................   174

        The best current estimate is that approximately $4.0 to $4.5
    million is needed to fund SOAP operational expenses for a 12-month
    period. The States and OSM now are forming a team to conduct an in-
    depth review of the ongoing funding needs for this program. Requests
    for fiscal year 2001 and beyond will be based on the results of joint
    review and the work to develop a formula-based approach to determining
    actual one-year funding needs.
                         appalachian streams initiative
        The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a $3,000,000 increase
    for Appalachian Streams Initiative.
        Question. How much additional Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) could be
    remediated with this additional funding? How many states currently
    receive funds through the ASI program? Will more states receive money
    if increased funds are provided?
        Answer. We anticipate that remediation will start on up to 42
    Appalachian Clean Streams projects (planning, design, or construction)
    in fiscal year 2000 with this increase in funding. Once funds are
    appropriated, the States will select those projects to be funded
    through the grant program. Currently, 12 states receive funds through
    the Clean Streams program. These States are Alabama, Illinois, Indiana,
    Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
    Virginia, and West Virginia. These are the States that historically
    have participated in the program.
        Question. To what extent, have ASI funds been leveraged with state
    and private funding? Does the agency plan to utilize more leveraging in
    the future? What are the goals and expectations?
        Answer. At this time, the ratio of appropriated funds to leveraged
    funds is approximately 1:1. This includes partners' funds committed for
    activities within the watershed of the specific project. There also are
    numerous instances of in-kind services being provided for which a
    dollar value has not yet been established. The in-kind services, for
    example, project design or the use of construction equipment, are
    significant in certain cases. Our goal is to continue expanding the
    number of non-government partners and to increase leveraging capability
    with cooperators to a 1:1.4 ratio. We anticipate that for fiscal year
    2000 approximately 60 percent of the total funds involved in the
    projects will be from other than OSM's Appalachian Clean Streams
    Initiative.
                               contractor offsets
        Question. When will the agency issue new rules concerning the
    offset of contractor's reclamation costs by allowing the contractor to
    remove and sell coal incidental to reclamation efforts?
        Answer. The final rule was published in the Federal Register
    (Volume 64, number 2, page 7471) on February 12, 1999.
        Question. What were the main issues raised by the public comment on
    the proposed rules?
        Answer. The AML Enhancement rule has as its goal to use coal that
    can be recovered at abandoned mine sites to help finance the cost of
    the reclamation. By allowing the reclamation contractor to sell this
    coal and keep the proceeds, we are reducing the overall cost of the
    project to the government. This stretches the limited AML dollar,
    making money saved on these types of projects available for additional
    projects. The rule also can have an impact on helping to keep small
    operators in business, since many are involved in remining efforts. For
    these reasons, the great majority of commenters supported the rule. Two
    commenters were concerned that this rule could allow for remining to be
    conducted under the AML program when it should be conducted under a
    Title V permit.
        Question. How will the agency's final rule respond to these
    concerns?
        Answer. The final rule contains significant safeguards. In order to
    proceed, the regulatory authority first has to determine that the site
    is not likely to be remined under the Title V regulatory program. This
    determination is made after taking into account the economic and
    technical feasibility of remining the area. It is made in a
    consultation between the Title V and the Title IV authorities. We also
    reiterated the many environmental protections already in place in the
    AML program and pointed out the additional safeguards we added to the
    regulations for these specific types of AML sites.
                             state minimum funding
        The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990 establishes a minimum
    State grant funding level of $2,000,000 per State. However, since
    fiscal year 1995 funding for the program has been limited to $1,500,000
    per State. The agency recommends increasing the minimum State share to
    $2,000,000.
        Question. Is there sufficient high-priority work in each State that
    increasing each State's minimum share will not reduce efforts to
    complete highest priority work nationwide? What would be the impact, if
    at all, on the agency's other work if this increase were provided?
        Answer. Based on our review of the unreclaimed sites listed in the
    Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System, currently all States eligible for
    minimum program level, with the exception of New Mexico, have
    sufficient high-priority work to cover the requested $2,000,000 minimum
    program level. In the case of New Mexico, the State is determining if
    there are additional eligible coal high priority sites that should be
    added to the Inventory. If not, the State would receive only the amount
    needed to reclaim the listed unfunded high-priority eligible sites.
    There will be no impact on other OSM work if this increase is provided.
                                      gpra
        Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)?
        Answer. The Director has taken several significant steps to
    establish a comprehensive process for achieving performance-based
    management within OSM including: (1) defining specific outcome-based
    measures that relate to mission responsibilities; (2 ) developing
    reliable cost data on critical OSM activities and initiatives; (3)
    aggressively pursuing feedback from customers and stakeholders on OSM's
    performance; (4) cascading performance measurement throughout the
    organization; and (5) holding manager's responsible for accomplishing
    specific objectives that support the agency's overall goals.
        Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. Resources are allocated to managers in support of the goals
    and objectives outlined in our strategic plan and they are held
    accountable through their individual performance agreements.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. We manage our program activities by:
      --defining performance outputs by program activity;
      --holding managers accountable through individual performance
            agreements;
      --assigning unique account codes to identify costs for each output;
      --applying indirect administrative overhead costs to programs; and
      --providing program cost data to managers to determine if measures
            are meaningful and if appropriate priorities are being
            identified.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    the funding the agency re quested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. Through consultation with our stakeholders, we identified
    increased funding for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands as a
    strategically critical high priority. As a result, we have proposed a
    $25 million increase in the AML reclamation program to aggressively
    accelerate the restoration of abandoned mine sites adversely affected
    by past coal mining practices. Performance measures showing the on-the-
    ground results in terms of additional acres reclaimed and streams
    cleaned were used to support OSM's request for increased funding in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget. Specifically, we estimate that an additional
    1,800 acres of AML land and hazards would be reclaimed with the
    additional requested funding.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plans?
        Answer. We have made the following program changes and enhancements
    based on increasing our program performance:
      --reallocated resources to the AML program to accomplish reclamation
            now, rather than later--an additional 1,800 acres of hazardous
            lands to be restored beginning in fiscal year 2000;
      --emphasized our Clean Stream Initiative to increase the use of non-
            agency funds to undertake reclamation;
      --introduced the AML Enhancement Initiative--a revision of Federal
            regulations to allow coal mine operators to reclaim AML sites
            without significant additional cost to the AML fund or the
            government;
      --established a high priority issues identification program of
            outreach to all of our employees to determine what regulatory
            and reclamation issues need to be addressed;
      --enhanced our outreach to our stakeholders (States, industry,
            citizen and environmental groups) to continually improve our
            programs and services;
      --established a succession planning initiative for workload/workforce
            analysis, due to aging workforce and changing roles for OSM, to
            recommend long-term resource allocation.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performance goals?
        Answer. There is a direct link between OSM's annual performance
    goals and the strategic plan and OSM's budget request to Congress. Our
    new appropriation account structure is based on ``business lines''
    identified in the strategic and annual plans. These business lines more
    clearly reflect the activities that we do in carrying out our mission
    and in meeting our goals. At this program activity level, there is a
    one to one relationship with appropriation account codes and
    performance measures.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. There are no further changes to the appropriation structure
    required at this time. We are making internal changes by redefining
    program activities and definitions to facilitate activity based cost
    accounting and to be able to associate costs with performance outputs.
    We are accomplishing this by amending our internal organizational and
    accounting codes.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. We are currently collecting data for all our current
    performance measures which will be available for the first performance
    report.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. We continue to work with the States to improve the
    reliability of their data and are adjusting our own performance data as
    necessary. We collect performance data from 26 States, many having
    slightly different reporting systems and interpretations of the data
    requirements. We are working together to remedy the differences.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding request take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance.
        Answer. We will shift our program focus and revise future budget
    requests, where necessary, to accomplish more effective performance
    output with the most efficient investment of our resources.
                            U. S. Geological Survey
                      competition with the private sector
        Question. Last year, this Subcommittee heard complaints that USGS
    was providing or seeking to provide a variety of commercial services to
    Federal and non-federal entities in direct competition with the private
    sector. As a result, language was included in both the fiscal year 1999
    Senate Report and the Statement of the Managers urging USGS to review
    its practices and use the services of the private sector wherever
    feasible and cost-effective. Please describe what, if any, action has
    been taken at the Department level to assure that GS is not competing
    unfairly with the private sector. Are there specific areas where
    improvements have been made to existing practices?
        Answer. The USGS has used private sector services for many years,
    having begun to emphasize the use of contracting in the early 1980's as
    a valuable option for achieving program objectives. In 1992, the USGS
    formally endorsed this business practice with a written policy to use
    private sector services in all cases where appropriate. For the past
    few years, the USGS has been working with Congress, particularly the
    Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and the House, to ensure
    that map and digital data production activities conform with
    Congressional expectations for the use of private sector services by
    Federal agencies. Both Congress and industry advocacy groups have
    expressed appreciation of USGS efforts in this arena. In fiscal year
    1999, the USGS will spend over $32 million to acquire geospatial data
    through the use of private-sector firms.
        The Secretary of the Interior, under the Federal Advisory Committee
    Act, established the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI)
    chaired by the Department of the Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary
    for Water and Science. During an August 1998 meeting, ACWI established
    a task force to examine the content and the conduct of the Federal-
    State Cooperative Water Program (Coop Program) of the USGS. The Task
    Force, comprises a balanced representation of 22 members from Federal,
    regional, State, tribal, local, and municipal government agencies, and
    the private sector. The Task Force selected Mr. Larry Rowe, Western
    Water Company, San Bernadino, California, as its Chairperson and Mr.
    Fred Lisnner, Manager, Ground Water and Hydrology Department, Oregon
    Department of Water Resources, Salem, Oregon, as Vice-Chairperson.
        Under the Terms of Reference, the Task Force is addressing four
    topics, including ``conduct of work.'' Nearly all of the work in the
    Coop Program is performed by USGS scientists and technicians. This
    arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national
    consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a
    stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide. The Task Force
    is considering whether this arrangement might be improved without
    sacrificing its benefits; what is the appropriate relationship with the
    private sector, States, universities, etc.; and what would be the
    implications of altering current work arrangements on the unique
    qualities of the Coop Program and water management nationwide. The
    American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) and the American
    Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) have made statements of concern
    about competition to the ACWI. Prior to and after the August 1998 ACWI
    meeting, the USGS has had meetings and correspondence with AIPG and
    ACEC on this issue. The Task Force convened two panels of private
    sector individuals, including representatives from AIPG and ACEC, to
    discuss the issue of competition and to define the appropriate role of
    the USGS. The Task Force will complete its work by the end of June 1999
    with a report of findings that ACWI will use as the basis of
    recommendations on modifications or enhancements to the Coop Program.
    The ACWI will announce the availability of the draft report for public
    review and comment in the Federal Register before transmitting the
    final report to the Director of the USGS.
        Question. The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act passed by
    Congress last year mandates that each department and agency provide an
    annual inventory of its commercial activities to the Office of
    Management and Budget. The deadline for submission of this inventory is
    June 30, 1999. Are preliminary lists of these activities for DOI
    bureaus, including GS, available at this time? What has this data
    demonstrated to you in terms of the Department's contracting procedures
    and outsourcing practices?
        Answer. The Department's scheduled due date for submissions from
    the Bureaus is June 15. Information is not yet available on which to
    draw conclusions.
                                      gpra
        Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. The Director has refocused the strategic and annual plans
    which has:
      --established common goals that are being implemented across the
            organization;
      --encouraged integration, synergy, and shared measures among
            scientific disciplines; and
      --ensured that every measure is part of a chain of cause and effect
            linkages that measure m ovement of the organization in its
            strategic direction.
        Customer-involvement is the focus of the new plan's strategic
    direction and permeates all aspects of the plans. Further, aggregation
    in the new strategic and annual plans has substantially reduced the
    number of Business Activities or mission goals from eight to two,
    strategic or long-term goals from 67 to two, and performance measures
    from 112 to 10. In addition, the USGS has developed and begun using a
    web-based Intranet system for gathering performance information, and
    monitors and evaluates progress internally as part of their Budget
    Execution Review process and with the Department Planning Office as
    well.
        Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. The USGS has developed an accountability framework with
    specific performance targets and is in the process of implementing them
    throughout the organization with full intent of holding senior
    executives accountable. Executive Leadership Team meetings held twice a
    year bring all USGS senior executives, regional directors, and selected
    program managers together to discuss progress in advancing their
    strategic direction and achieving targeted performance and outcomes.
    Their long-term goal is to reinforce the strategic plan through the
    rewards system, linking the reward of individual or team contributions
    to the achievement of the strategic direction and goals.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. Progress is reviewed with senior managers at quarterly
    program and budget reviews and is reported quarterly to the Department.
    As more performance information becomes available, management decisions
    will increasingly derive from it.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request was formulated on the
    basis of the strategic plan and addresses both of the USGS mission
    goals.
        The Hazards mission goal which focuses efforts on predicting and
    monitoring hazardous events in near real time is being advanced by the
    Real-Time Hazards request for an increase of $5.45 million. Funding
    will be used to accelerate instrument modernization and expand the use
    of real-time telemetry that allows rapid notification of emergency
    response agencies that deal with natural disasters. The baseline rate
    of improvement of the flood and earthquake networks is 100 streamgages
    telemetered per year and 20 improved earthquake sensors installed per
    year. The request will add telemetry to an additional 150 streamgages
    and install an additional 80 earthquake sensors. Increasing
    availability and accessibility of hazards information is also being
    promoted with an $8 million increase requested for a Disaster
    Information Network.
        The Environment and Natural Resources mission goal (focusing
    efforts on expanding understanding of environment and natural resources
    issues on regional, national, and global scales and enhancing
    predictive/forecast modeling capabilities) is being advanced by the
    Integrated Science request for an increase of $17.4 million to
    intensify multidisciplinary scientific support for Department of the
    Interior issues, and Community/Federal Information Partnerships request
    for an increase of $10 million for coordinated interagency efforts to
    make new information and tools readily available to local communities.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plans?
        Answer. In addition to the specific program change examples cited
    in the previous answer, the USGS has refocused its strategic plan to be
    customer driven. This commitment follows through in the USGS budget and
    accompanying annual plan with increased emphasis on providing natural
    science data and research that meet the highest priority needs of
    customers in fulfilling their missions. This focus strengthens USGS'
    contribution to the resolution of complex issues and strengthens USGS'
    tie to the outcomes achieved by their customers through science-based
    decisionmaking.
        Returning to the Integrated Science example, in providing science
    for a changing world, the Department has a planned outcome that
    resource managers will make decisions based on accurate, reliable, and
    impartial scientific information. One of the strategies to achieve this
    outcome is to ensure that the scientific research program focuses on
    understanding, assessing, and monitoring ecosystems to provide
    scientific understanding and technologies needed to support sound land
    and resource management. In fiscal year 2000, a DOI-wide process is
    being piloted with NPS, FWS, and BLM to assess the status of current
    science support, identify gaps and cross-bureau applications, formulate
    priorities for USGS research in support of land management needs and
    obtain land management bureau input for defining GPRA metrics and
    science outcomes. The request provides the first step in establishing a
    broad partnership with these Federal managers to enhance scientifically
    sound management of the lands and resources under their stewardship.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performance goals?
        Answer. The GPRA Program Activity concept is used to better relate
    goals to the existing budget structure, to present both budget and
    performance information in a more issue-focused way, and to enhance the
    plan's informative value. The two mission goals from the USGS refocused
    Strategic Plan are used as the GPRA Program Activities in the Annual
    Performance Plan. Each mission goal or GPRA Program Activity has one
    associated long-term goal which identifies target levels and the time
    frame of performance for the Strategic Plan. Each of the Strategic
    Plan's long-term goals has one associated annual goal which identifies
    the annual performance increment necessary to achieve the long-term
    goal as well as any change proposed to result from program and budget
    initiatives. Each annual goal has five performance measures--a total of
    ten for the entire Annual Plan.
        The GPRA Program Activity concept captures the contribution of all
    program activities to a common mission requirement by applying a single
    set of annual goals and performance measures across all five of USGS'
    budget activities: National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards,
    Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological
    Research; and Integrated Science. The two remaining activities, Science
    Support and Facilities, support all programmatic activities and their
    funding is distributed on a prorata basis to the two GPRA Program
    Activities. The funding contributions of each programmatic budget
    activity to achieving these mission goals are identified in each
    Activity Summary in the fiscal year 2000 budget and discussed further
    in the fiscal year 2000 Annual Plan. Conversely, the performance
    targets are disaggregated to show the contribution of each budget
    activity to each GPRA Program Activity in tables in the Appendix of the
    fiscal year 2000 Annual Plan.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. The basic activity structure of USGS budget has been in
    place for most of the USGS' 120 year existence. Because much of the
    budget structure predates GPRA, it does not optimize linkage of
    resource amounts to performance goals. For the fiscal year 2000 budget
    submission USGS added a budget activity, Integrated Science, to the
    budget structure, and consolidated facilities costs as well as bureau
    level administrative costs. These changes improve the presentation of
    GPRA performance information, and are designed to begin migration of
    the budget structure to a more meaningful and useful format and
    position the organization to better link resource needs and
    performance. As USGS continues to gain experience in communicating,
    budgeting, and implementing their initial strategic plan, budget
    structure changes that will optimize resource and performance linkage
    may be developed.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. The USGS believes that reliable performance data will be
    available for the fiscal year 1999 performance report due March 2000.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. The USGS will continue to verify and validate performance
    data and measures.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance?
        Answer. As actual performance data become integrated into the
    performance planning process which accompanies budget formulation,
    progress toward achieving strategic (long-term) goals will be monitored
    and funding requests adjusted to direct resources in a manner that will
    achieve stated goals.
                           Fish and Wildlife Service
                     sportfish restoration grants to states
        TEA21 increased the Boat Safety transfer to the Coast Guard from
    $20 million in 1998 to $64 million in 1999. TEA21 also authorized a new
    program for outreach with a first year cost of $5 million. The total
    reduction of $49 million comes from the Sport Fish Restoration Grants
    program. TEA21 was intended to replace the Coast Guard's discretionary
    appropriation for Boat Safety with a permanent source of funding. It
    calls for $64 million to be transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration
    Account to the Boat Safety Account in 1999, instead of $20 million
    under previous authorization. Members of Congress asked OMB to allow
    the $64 million for fiscal year 1999 to be taken from current year
    receipts in the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund instead of being
    transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration Account. OMB determined
    that this was not authorized. Most states have prepared budgets for
    fiscal year 1999 based on a preliminary apportionment of SFR grants
    which did not take into account the $64 million deduction. The
    reduction equates to about two months' funding. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service advises that a legislative solution is required if the States
    are to receive relief this fiscal year.
        Question. What is the status?
        Answer. A legislative solution would be required to amend the
    language in TEA21 that caused a 22 percent reduction in the Sport Fish
    Restoration (SFR) Fund Final Apportionment to the states for fiscal
    year 1999. The FWS has met with representatives of the state fish and
    game departments and advised them of administrative alternatives
    available for any near-term state budget shortfalls. The following four
    administrative actions were recommended:
        1. Use any leftover obligation authority from fiscal year 1998 to
    proceed until October 1999, when the fiscal year 2000 SFR apportionment
    becomes available.
        2. De-obligate funds remaining for projects in which the original
    amount obligated exceeded actual project costs.
        3. Defer major obligations such as equipment purchases, awarding of
    contracts, etc., until October 1999.
        4. Defer awarding major contracts for boating access projects until
    October 1999. (The minimum 15 percent expenditure of SFR funds for
    boating access applies to the state's 5-year average expenditure for
    boating access, not to the annual expenditure for boating access.)
        Question. When can we expect to see a legislative proposal from the
    Administration that fixes the problem?
        Answer. The Department does not plan to develop a legislative
    proposal on this issue since the administrative alternatives provide
    workable solutions this fiscal year. The increase in the amount of the
    Boat Safety transfer is a one-year problem in fiscal year 1999 only.
                             refuge revenue sharing
        Question. What is the status of efforts to address problems in the
    Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge revenue sharing program?
        Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund has provided less than
    the 100 percent entitlement payments each year since fiscal year 1981.
    For most refuges, the entitlement payment formula is based on appraised
    market value of the lands that had been purchased. Over the past
    decades these lands have increased in market value. Because the FWS
    acquires additional lands each year, the total number and amount of
    payments have also increased over this period.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service has requested
    $10 million in appropriations to supplement the estimated $6 million in
    net receipts that will be available for refuge revenue sharing
    payments. The combined $16 million will cover about 53 percent of the
    full, formula-based, entitlements ($30 million). Since the national
    refuges are managed for the protection of wildlife and their habitats,
    the generation of additional receipts from timber harvesting, grazing,
    and other economic activities are limited by compatibility statutes and
    regulations. Because of other policy and program priorities and fiscal
    constraints, the FWS fiscal year 2000 budget could not shift an
    additional $14 million to the refuge revenue sharing program to meet
    the full entitlement payments. The FWS will consider other options in
    its fiscal year 2001 budget plans.
        It should be noted, however, that the national wildlife refuges
    bring other economic benefits to communities through public visitation,
    as well as the refuges' employment and purchases of supplies and
    services. These benefits are highlighted in a recent study, Banking on
    Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife
    Refuge Visitation. A copy of this report is provided to the Committee
    on Appropriations.
        Question. Why hasn't the Administration requested full funding for
    this program?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the FWS estimates that $30 million
    would be needed to fully fund the refuge revenue sharing program. An
    annual appropriation of $24 million would be needed to supplement the
    projected $6 million in net receipts collected by the refuges. The FWS
    fiscal year 2000 budget requests $10 million in appropriations. Because
    of policy priorities, the FWS could not propose shifting $14 million
    from other ongoing program needs to the refuge revenue sharing program
    for meeting the full entitlement payments.
        Question. Does the Administration intend to submit a legislative
    proposal to address inequities in the existing refuge revenue sharing
    program?
        Answer. At this time, the Department does not plan to submit a
    legislative proposal that would change the existing pro rata formula
    used to distribute refuge revenue sharing payments to counties.
                     government performance and results act
        Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance based on management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. Recently, the FWS Director issued an annual performance
    goal accountability memorandum to all Regional Directors which commits
    the Regional Directors to meeting the performance measure targets in
    the fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan. These targets were
    established by the Washington Office program managers and revised based
    on input from the regional offices. So far, the Service has only
    reported performance data for first quarter of fiscal year 1999. The
    FWS is in the process of developing a performance planning and
    management system. The objective of this system is to manage a business
    system based on goals and performance measures throughout all regions
    of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As the FWS continues to record
    accomplishment data, it will be in a better position to integrate the
    results of performance in the management process.
        Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. The senior executives of the FWS are held accountable for
    delivery of the annual performance goals through two mechanisms. First,
    each senior executive commits to key performance objectives for the
    year in a performance agreement with the Director. One of the key
    performance objectives is the provision of sound leadership in
    strategic planning and in development of performance goals and measures
    to achieve desired outcomes. The second mechanism is issuance of the
    Director's memorandum of annual performance goal accountability. This
    memorandum provides the final fiscal year annual performance goals and
    performance targets and the regional contributions necessary to
    successfully meet those targets.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. The FWS has reported performance data for the first quarter
    of fiscal year 1999. Many of the FWS performance measures can only be
    reported annually. For example, migratory bird populations status is
    collected at the end of the year through annual surveys, and all refuge
    operational data is collected nationally at the close of each fiscal
    year through the Refuge Management Information System. Through the
    second quarter of fiscal year 1999, the FWS has reported on eight
    performance measures. The FWS expects to increase the number of
    measures that it reports quarterly as it develops a performance
    planning and management system. With this system, FWS managers will be
    able to track, analyze, and report on the annual performance goals.
    Thus, the FWS will be in a better position to use performance
    information to manage the agency after completing its first year of
    reporting.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. In the FWS's fiscal year 2000 budget submission to the
    Congress, each major program was linked to one or more fiscal year 2000
    annual performance goals and related performance measures. Also, each
    proposed fiscal year 2000 program increase contained a separate section
    entitled, Relationship to Performance Goal, which describes how the
    proposed increase would contribute to one or more annual performance
    goals.
        For example, in the Habitat Conservation program, the Coastal
    Program is requesting a $1.5 million increase. These additional
    resources will contribute directly to the FWS's annual performance goal
    2.3.1, which seeks to improve the fish and wildlife populations
    focusing on trust resources, threatened and endangered species, and
    species of special concern by enhancing and/or restoring, or creating
    wetlands, uplands and riparian habitats partnerships and other
    conservation strategies.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plan?
        Answer. The FWS is actively engaged in continuous improvement
    opportunities through reengineering current processes and program
    delivery mechanisms. One such improvement was the refocusing and
    streamlining of the FWS's first Strategic Plan. In this revision, eight
    long-term goals and 60 performance measures were incorporated into a
    broader set of outcome goals that the FWS could more clearly articulate
    its contribution to the public. In this first year of full bureau-wide
    participation in the GPRA performance management process, the FWS has
    been pursuing quarterly monitoring and reviewing performance
    measurement data to assure successful delivery of our annual goal
    commitments. It should be noted that the FWS's ability to meet its
    strategic and annual goals is directly related to receiving
    appropriations consistent with the budget request.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performance goals?
        Answer. The FWS has linked its proposed fiscal year 2000 program
    increases to the fiscal year 2000 annual performance. For example, each
    proposed fiscal year 2000 increase has a separate section entitled,
    Relationship to Performance Goals, which describes how the proposed
    increase would contribute to one or more annual performance goals. The
    FWS's base budget is linked to the three FWS Mission Goals, not to the
    Annual Performance Goals.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. The long-term and annual performance goals for the FWS
    provide strategic (horizontal) approach to delivery of various programs
    and activities of the FWS. Therefore, there is no direct alignment or
    linkage of the budget structure with the goal structure.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. The FWS anticipates that reliable data will be available
    for all performance measures necessary to report the successful
    accomplishment of the fiscal year 1999 annual performance goals in the
    annual performance report due March 2000.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. The FWS anticipates that reliable data will be available
    for all performance measures necessary to report the successful
    accomplishment of the fiscal year 1999 annual performance goals in the
    annual performance report due March 2000.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding request take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance?
        Answer. Because the FWS recently completed a revision of the
    Strategic Plan, which set new goals and baselines, it was not
    appropriate to take into consideration performance related to the
    funding request for fiscal year 2000. During the development of the
    funding request, the existing strategic plan was streamlined to ensure
    more meaningful performance goals and performance measures.
                             National Park Service
                          construction program reform
        Under direction from this Subcommittee, the Department has
    undertaken significant reforms of the Park Service construction
    program.
        Question. What is the status of the Department's efforts to
    implement the reforms recommended by the National Academy of Public
    Administration and this subcommittee?
        Answer. The National Park Service has made the following progress
    in implementing the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
    recommendations:
        NAPA Recommendation 1. Contract out about 90 percent of the design
    work and all of the construction supervision and inspection.
        The Denver Service Center (DSC) is working on approximately 60
    percent of the construction line item program. Parks and Regions do the
    remaining percentage. In fiscal year 1999, the DSC split between
    Architectural/Engineering (A/E) contracts and in-house work is
    approximately 50/50. This ratio exists because DSC's workload is still
    representative of continuing prior year work that cannot efficiently be
    converted to an A/E contract. In fiscal year 2000, the DSC split is
    proposed to be 85 percent A/E and 15 percent in-house; the remaining,
    continuing work at Sequoia National Park will put DSC slightly beyond
    the 10 percent threshold. By fiscal year 2001, DSC will meet NAPA's
    prescribed 90 percent/10 percent program split.
        In fiscal year 1999, the park/region split between A/E and in-house
    work is 53/47. In fiscal year 2000, the park/region split is proposed
    to be 95 percent A/E and 5 percent in-house. In fiscal year 2001 the
    park/region split is proposed to be 87 percent A/E and 13 percent in-
    house.
        Construction inspection/supervision is being done by contract.
    Eight employees (down from 45 in August, 1998 and approximately 60 a
    year ago) remain in the field to complete current phases of
    construction inspection through December 1999. By the end of fiscal
    year 1999, Denver Service Center will have completed current
    construction contracts and returned all field staff to Denver except
    for two people. These two people are assigned to projects that will not
    be complete until fiscal year 2000.
        NAPA Recommendation 2. Improve DSC's management of A/E firms
    performing design activities.
        DSC has begun to involve A/E firms as team members during the pre-
    design phase of projects. This provides for a more seamless transition
    from pre-design to design. To form a more effective partnership with A/
    E firms, DSC has established the process of asking for the A/E's input
    prior to writing the scope of services for their work. DSC is holding
    more discussions in lieu of passing paperwork back and forth, thus
    cutting down on the time it takes to get the firm under contract. Once
    the A/E firm is in full production of plans and specifications, the DSC
    project manager and pre-design team members remain as part of the team
    to assure that the programming phase is understood and the design
    intent is carried through.
        NAPA Recommendation 3. Utilize A/E firms that have experience in
    the general locale of the project and that have solid reputations.
        Following Public Law 92-582 (the ``Brooks Act'') procedures, the
    most technically qualified firm is selected for any given project.
    Utilizing this selection process, DSC has increased the weight of two
    significant selection criteria: geographic location (and/or expertise)
    to the site and past performance. Any new contract awards will be based
    on both geographic proximity and solid reputations. In addition,
    utilizing some of DSC's large, nationwide, indefinite-quantity
    contracts, DSC is able to place design task orders with the most
    appropriate firm from a geographic standpoint.
        Examples of compliance with this recommendation include A/E
    contracts presently being let in the northeast portion of the country.
    DSC will be selecting firms from Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington,
    D.C. to accomplish design work in those areas. Denver Service Center
    will also be awarding contracts to very competent design firms in some
    of these areas utilizing the 8(a) program of the Small Business
    Administration.
        NAPA Recommendation 4. Adopt standardized design and construction
    practices, and obtain professional services to prepare standard design
    drawings and specifications.
        Specific work has not started on this recommendation. The Service
    has prepared a scope of services for preparing standardized designs but
    has not begun the project. The NPS Development Advisory Board is
    collecting comparative cost data on facilities that will be useful on
    this project.
        NAPA Recommendation 5. Make planning and management of contracts a
    critical and major function of the DSC.
        DSC has made major changes in contract methodology. DSC is using
    competitive negotiation procedures in lieu of low bid awards. This
    allows the selection of construction contractors based on their
    expertise in the locale, past performance and experience, as well as
    price. DSC has streamlined this process to the point that it can be
    accomplished in the same timeframe as sealed bidding. DSC is involving
    construction management firms not only in on-site inspection services
    but also in estimating, reviewing of bidding documents, and value
    analysis. As each project begins, DSC is looking at ``design/build'' as
    well as other innovative ways to accomplish the work. Currently, DSC
    has two successful ``design/build'' projects underway. DSC has also
    used formal partnering on some of our larger construction projects,
    such as the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial.
        NAPA Recommendation 6. Assign responsibility and accountability for
    line item construction projects to the park superintendents and give
    them training.
        Curriculum is being developed to train superintendents in how to
    oversee an overall construction program in their park. Four courses are
    scheduled for this year.
        Beginning in fiscal year 1999, new processes are in place for the
    allocation of construction planning and construction management related
    funding. In the past and continuing in the future, funding for the
    line-item construction projects (actual construction dollars) were
    allocated to the Regional Offices, in accordance with the amounts in
    the NPS line-item budget. In fiscal year 1999, funding for construction
    planning and construction management activities will be allocated in a
    similar fashion.
        Regional Offices, parks, the Denver Service Center and the Harpers
    Ferry Center will identify funding needs for the planning and
    construction management program. Project needs will be reviewed by the
    Washington Budget Office in order to determine if they are commensurate
    with the funding sources authorized. As the projects proceed, funding
    will be requested by the lead project office from the Regional Office
    for each activity related to that project. The Region will request the
    specific amount related to award of an A/E contract, purchase order, or
    some other procurement need, from the Washington Budget Office. Once
    that has been approved, the funding will be allocated to the Regional
    Office. As a result, superintendents and the Regional Director have
    responsibility for ensuring that the funds requested are within the
    NAPA percentages, are being requested for authorized activities (A/E,
    other contracted services), and are within the confines of the original
    project budget.
        NAPA Recommendation 7. Establish a National Park Service project
    management control system to provide visibility of project status.
        The tracking system that the Committee directed the National Park
    Service to establish is currently in place for monitoring and tracking
    projects in which DSC is involved. The system is being monitored for
    effectiveness and usability. Feedback from DSC users indicates that the
    system is working well and provides information in a variety of
    formats. After additional user evaluation, the system will be studied
    for expansion in fiscal year 2000 to include tracking of all National
    Park Service projects.
        A group of four construction management professionals reporting to
    the NPS Associate Director for Professional Services is in place to
    manage the NPS project management control system and to exercise
    oversight of the line-item development program for the Director.
        NAPA Recommendation 8. Establish an external review group to assess
    line-item construction projects for functional suitability and cost-
    effectiveness.
        The Director has established and appointed an external review group
    to review line-item construction projects. The group of ``Advisors to
    the Director'' will consist of five primary advisors and three
    alternates with diverse backgrounds in policy and budget
    administration, cultural and natural resources, architecture,
    historical architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering.
        The eight advisors are:
      --David Morehouse--Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary,
            Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
      --James Caufield--Chief Architectural Services, Pennsylvania
            Historical and Museum Commission
      --Yvonne Ferrell--Director, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
      --David Freeman--Chief Engineer, Georgia Department of Natural
            Resources
      --Rodney Stokes--Chief, Parks and Recreation, Michigan Department of
            Natural Resources
      --Gary Bush--Chief, Office of Landscape Architecture, California
            Department of Transportation
      --James Kirkman--Project Director, Kennedy Center
      --Alice Morehouse--Deputy Division Administrator, Wisconsin
            Department of Transportation
        An orientation session for the special advisors is planned in
    April. The advisors began the review of projects at the May meeting of
    the NPS Development Advisory Board (DAB). During DAB meetings the
    advisors will review and fully participate in discussions of the
    presented projects. Findings and recommendations of the advisors will
    be reported to the NPS Director for follow-up and action. NAPA
        Recommendation 9. Base fund the DSC civil service activities that
    support the general management planning and line-item pre-design and
    project management activities.
        DSC is base funded in fiscal year 1999 for activities associated
    with the line-item program. The dollars provided by Congress will
    support 151 FTE. Non-base funding support for 109 FTE comes from the
    General Management Plan Program, Federal Highway Administration, and
    other reimbursable sources.
        NAPA Recommendation 10. Use standard estimation factors in
    developing the line-item program.
        All line-item projects for fiscal year 2000 and beyond are
    estimated and will be managed within the NAPA guidelines.
        NAPA Recommendation 11. To control NPS housing costs, compare the
    estimated costs with the Tri-services Military Family Housing Cost
    Model prior to budget submission and prior to construction.
        The NPS is using the Tri-Military Cost Model, as recommended by
    NAPA, beginning with the upcoming construction cycle. Where the cost
    estimates exceed 10 percent of the model estimate, NPS would require
    the park superintendent to justify additional costs and obtain approval
    from the Director before proceeding with the construction.
        Based on the NAPA recommendations that 90 percent of the planning,
    construction management and construction should be contracted out, the
    Committee directed that the Denver Service Center staff be reduced by
    50 percent. In order to help achieve that goal, the Committee provided
    buyout authority and encouraged transfers to parks or Regional Offices.
        Implementation of these reforms will require personnel reductions
    at the Denver Service Center.
        Question. How are these reductions being made?
        Answer. Reductions have been made and will continue to be made
    utilizing a combination of buyout authority, transfers to other
    National Park Service offices and parks and to other Federal agencies,
    and lastly, through reductions-in-force.
        Question. What have been the personnel levels at Denver for the
    past two fiscal years, what is the personnel level now, and what is the
    anticipated personnel level at the end of fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The authorized personnel ceiling for the Denver Service
    Center was 493 full time equivalency positions prior to the
    implementation of the NAPA recommendations. The current employment
    ceiling is 292, and the anticipated ceiling by the end of fiscal year
    1999 is 260.
        Question. Assuming the levels in the President's budget request,
    what will happen to personnel levels in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Personnel levels for the Denver Service Center for fiscal
    2000 will remain at the proposed end of fiscal year 1999 level--260
    full time equivalency positions.
        Question. How many Denver personnel are likely to be absorbed into
    other Park Service program areas?
        Answer. Through February 28, 1999, 126 employees have transferred
    to other positions within the NPS and other Federal agencies.
    Outplacement services that were established to assist employees find
    employment elsewhere will remain in force for the foreseeable future;
    at this time it is unknown how many employees will eventually be
    absorbed into other N PS organizations before the end of fiscal 1999.
                        land and water conservation fund
        Section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Act authorizes the
    ``Stateside'' program as a formula grant program for land acquisition
    and other recreation purposes. The Administration's budget essentially
    rewrites this section of the LWCF Act by requesting $50 million for
    competitive land use planning grants, and $150 million for a
    competitive grant program in which funds could only be used for land
    acquisition.
        Question. Why are you proposing to recreate the Stateside program
    as a competitive grant program?
        Answer. The Administration believes that the State grant program is
    an excellent means of leveraging Federal dollars with State and local
    matching funds, that such State and local projects will reduce
    pressures to acquire additional units for the Federal system, and that
    such units will slow the growth of Federal operating funds for new
    units.
        Question. Do you think you or your staff can make better decisions
    than the States about local conservation and recreation needs?
        Answer. Criteria for grant selection will be developed through a
    public process where input will be obtained from all interested
    parties, including State and local governments, and the Congress.
    Further, proposals to implement priorities cited in State, regional,
    and tribal plans, addressing open space preservation, smart growth
    strategies/urban sprawl management, park and recreation needs, and
    wildlife conservation will be given priority consideration. With the
    limited funds available, it is thought that the best projects nation-
    wide should be funded. For instance, criteria could take account of the
    lack of Federal recreational lands in many States and allocate funds to
    those areas with the greatest unmet need.
                          natural resources initiative
        The budget request includes a $14 million increase for the Natural
    Resources Initiative, which in large part is focused on creating an
    inventory of the natural resources existing in parks and implementing
    measures to protect those resources.
        Question. What is the relationship between the Park Service and the
    Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in
    implementing this initiative, and in generally supporting the science
    needs of the park system?
        Answer. The National Park Service identifies its research,
    inventory and monitoring, and resource management needs and plans and
    implements management activities to restore, preserve, and protect its
    natural resources. Examples of such activities include: using standard
    protocols to inventory parks for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians,
    and vascular plants; restoring disturbed areas such as abandoned mines
    and roads by establishing appropriate soil characteristics and planting
    native plants; applying pesticides or mechanical controls to invasive
    species; protecting the nesting sites of endangered species from
    disturbance; reviewing and approving plans or permits for activities
    that may adversely affect park resources and seeking appropriate
    controls and restrictions to avoid impacts; restoring a native species
    to an area from which it has been extirpated; and monitoring the health
    of the resources and the results of management actions. These are the
    types of activities proposed for funding in the NPS Natural Resource
    initiative.
        The U.S. Geological Survey assists the NPS in three principal
    fashions: it develops protocols for inventory and monitoring for NPS
    and others to implement; it conducts research that is broadly
    applicable to NPS management needs, such as new techniques for
    restoring specific plant species or for controlling invasives; and it
    conducts research to meet the specific management needs of specific
    parks. The U.S. Geological Survey also provides some technical
    assistance to help parks concerning their resource management
    activities, such as consulting about which methods should be employed.
        Question. Will any of the funds requested for this initiative flow
    to BRD? If not, why not?
        Answer. No. A significant portion of the NPS fiscal year 2000
    increase is for the Inventory and Monitoring Program. Research elements
    of the program were transferred from the NPS with funding when the
    National Biological Service, now BRD, was created. These were protocol
    development and the regional scale vegetation mapping program, which
    had national applications. The BRD continues to conduct these portions
    of the program with the funding that was transferred with the program
    responsibilities. The NPS retained responsibility and funding for
    purchasing data such as digital cartographic data and for conducting
    routine surveys using approved protocols. The NPS fiscal year 2000
    budget would accelerate these latter activities. The funding would not
    go to BRD, although some of the data are purchased from the USGS and
    from other Federal agencies, specifically the Natural Resource
    Conservation Service (for soils maps).
        Another example of related, but not overlapping, responsibilities
    with fiscal year 2000 budget implications is funding for high priority
    park projects. The NPS Natural Resource Preservation Program (NRPP) was
    designed originally to meet the highest natural resource needs of parks
    and is allocated competitively each year under careful criteria, using
    field evaluation panels. This fund was split into Research and Resource
    Management, the former portion going to BRD, when it was originally
    formed. The NRPP remaining in the NPS implements resource management
    activities; biological research is specifically ineligible as this is
    conducted by BRD.
        The USGS/BRD consults with the NPS and other bureaus to determine
    bureaus needs in their budget formulation process. The NPS requests BRD
    to seek increases for those functions that the Biological Resources
    Division performs on behalf of the National Park Service.
        Question. Does BRD currently perform work in support of the park
    system purposes for which the Natural Resource Initiative funds are
    being requested?
        Answer. No. As indicated above, the Biological Resources Division
    currently performs related functions, but not those for which fiscal
    year 2000 NPS funds are requested. The natural resource initiative
    addresses on-the-ground application of research in order to address in-
    park resource management activities.
        The request indicates that $6.5 million of the $8 million increase
    requested for Inventory and Monitoring will fund biological
    inventories.
        Question. Would this increase be used to create new full-time
    science positions within the Park Service, to reimburse BRD for work
    performed on the Park Service's behalf, for contracts with universities
    or other non-Federal entities, or some combination of the above?
        Answer. Of the proposed $8 million, most would be used for site-
    specific biotic surveys by the NPS. These surveys use accepted
    protocols. One means by which the BRD is assisting the NPS and other
    bureaus is by compiling information on acceptable protocols.
        It is anticipated that most of this NPS work would be performed
    through cooperative agreements with universities. Up to seven positions
    to manage the cooperative agreements would be established in the field.
    This will allow more effective partnerships at a local level with area
    colleges and universities. In addition, some resource management
    positions will eventually be established in parks to carry out
    monitoring programs designed by BRD, for about $2 million. Once the
    research and design work is completed, the BRD turns over the operation
    of the monitoring programs to the NPS, since operation involves routine
    sample collection, not normally undertaken by research scientists.
    There are several such programs now in the design stage using BRD funds
    that will shortly be ready for the NPS to take over. Finally, a small
    amount of the increase would be used to complete nonbiological surveys.
    Some of this funding will go to other Federal bureaus and agencies to
    purchase data sets that parks can use in daily operations.
        A Park Service concept paper in support of the Natural Resources
    Initiative states that ``Service leadership must have unimpeded access
    to advice from resource professionals.''
        Question. How is the Service leadership currently impeded from
    access to such professionals?
        Answer. The NPS lacks sufficient trained professional resource
    management personnel to carry out resource management applications
    itself, and also lacks staff to leverage assistance from others.
    Examples include assessing invasive species problems and carrying out
    necessary control measures (such as pesticide application and
    mechanical removal), identifying endangered species on NPS lands,
    working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to assure that the Park
    Service is carrying out appropriate protection and recovery measures,
    and other management applications.
        The NPS is also impeded from taking full advantage of the
    information generated by the scientific community, both in academia and
    the Federal sector. Again, this is largely due to the lack of dedicated
    staff for making appropriate use of available information. To assure
    close coordination with the BRD and with academia in meeting land
    management science needs, new cooperative efforts at universities are
    being tested. The Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units (CESU) are one
    vehicle for making connections between the NPS and its needs and the
    research community. By placing representatives of Federal research
    agencies and Federal research users on campuses, increased
    collaboration between the researchers and the research-users will
    result. And, land managers will be able to consolidate their research
    needs, further eliminating chances of duplication. Also, NPS personnel
    will have access to training, libraries, and a broad range of technical
    assistance from academic personnel. This requires only one NPS person
    stationed at a CESU, and eventually, about 16 CESUs. The NPS intends,
    through its natural resource initiative, to develop effective, more
    ways to increase access to available expertise.
        Within the Natural Resource Initiative, $1.5 million is requested
    to implement the Resource Protection Act.
        Question. How does this request relate to the funds requested for
    the department-wide Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)?
        Answer. The National Park Service request is for implementation of
    the Park System Resource Protection Act (16 USC 19jj). The Park System
    Resource Protection Act is a separate authority, distinct from the
    Department of the Interior's Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)
    Program, authorities which arise primarily from the Clean Water Act as
    amended by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), and the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The
    Department-wide program supports all bureau activities related to
    damages resulting from oil spills or releases of hazardous substances.
        Question. How does the NRDA statute differ from the Resource
    Protection Act?
        Answer. The NRDA statute allows the Secretary to conduct
    restoration and recover damages for injuries to natural resources under
    the ownership, management, or control of the Department resulting from
    the release of oil or hazardous substances into the environment. The
    Park System Resource Protection Act allows the Secretary to recover
    damages for injuries to any park system resource, from any cause as
    long as the Federally-owned park resource is within the boundaries of a
    unit of the National Park System. The Park System Act thus allows the
    Secretary to collect for damages to cultural resources and park
    facilities, as well as to natural resources, resulting from any kind of
    incident that causes injury and not just resulting from an oil spill or
    hazardous substance. As a result, the Park System Resource Protection
    Act is unique in its application to National Park Service resources. It
    is narrower than OPA or CERCLA because the Act's application is limited
    to damages to Federally-owned and NPS managed resources within units of
    the National Park System. It is broader than OPA or CERCLA because it
    applies to all resources and to damages arising from any source.
    Recoveries under the Act must be used for restoration, replacement, or
    acquisition of the equivalent of the damaged resource.
                              vanishing treasures
        An increase of $994,000 is requested for the Vanishing Treasures
    program.
        Question. With only $197,000 of this request going to ``managed
    emergency projects'' (for a total of $821,000) why is $103,000 required
    for ``Project Management and Oversight''?
        Answer. Only $2,000 of the $103,000 increase request for ``Project
    Management'' is for program oversight. The remainder of this part of
    the total Vanishing Treasures increase request includes the cost for an
    engineer/conservator position, who will be stationed at an as yet
    undetermined park, and will not be a program oversight position.
        Question. What would be the function of the Engineer/Conservator
    position, and how will the role of this person be different from that
    of the additional park staff that have been hired with funds already
    appropriated for Vanishing Treasures and transferred to park base
    budgets?
        Answer. Most of the personnel hired to date are considered ``hands-
    on'' staff charged with the specific responsibility of preserving
    Vanishing Treasures resources on a day-to-day basis. The primary
    purpose of the Engineer/Conservator position is to develop a program of
    engineering and structural monitoring evaluation of problems in
    prehistoric and historic ruins, and hazardous rock and soil masses.
    This is a highly specialized position that will be park-based and
    dedicated to providing assistance to the Vanishing Treasures parks.
    Some of the primary tasks performed would include assessment of the
    structural soundness of Vanishing Treasures resources, developing
    systems to detect movement and settlement of individual structures and
    the environment that they are built within, developing effective and
    efficient monitoring systems, assessment of the effects of ground and
    air vibrations on Vanishing Treasures resources, and developing,
    designing, and installing bracing systems for unsupported walls. This
    position will work directly with park preservation specialists and
    managers to inspect resources to determine needs, project planning,
    programming, implementation, and training.
                           repair and rehabilitation
        A $5 million increase is requested for the Repair and
    Rehabilitation program.
        Question. Why is $2 million of this request to be allocated to the
    National Capital Region, thereby providing a single region with a more
    than 60 percent increase?
        Answer. Due to the short deadline for the fiscal year 1999 repair
    and rehabilitation project call, the National Capital Region was not
    able to adequately document all of the Region's project needs. The
    fiscal year 2000 repair and rehabilitation request better represents
    the National Capital Region's needs as it is based on an inventory of
    the total health and safety needs within each Region, the ability to
    obligate funds and complete projects in a timely manner, and the number
    of assets in ``poor condition'' within each Region.
                                  park police
        Section 801 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998
    requires that a task force be appointed to report on Park Service law
    enforcement needs, including the needs of the U.S. Park Police.
        Question. What is the status of Park Service implementation of this
    provision? When will the report be available?
        Answer. The task force has been appointed and work on the report is
    well underway. The report is expected to be sent to the Secretary in
    August, with the due date to Congress of November 13, 1999, set by
    Section 801 of the Act. The report will include a separate analysis for
    the United States Park Police, as required by the Act.
        The National Park Service Director, to whom the Secretary delegated
    responsibility, has appointed a task force composed of field and
    management personnel from many professional backgrounds, and from the
    United States Park Police. The Director has authorized a task directive
    to guide the study that seeks economy by conducting the process in-
    house. Accuracy and objectivity are to be ensured by stipulating that
    all recommendations be drawn from data or base information that may be
    independently verified by the critical reviewer.
        Question. What are the telecommunications needs of the Park Police?
        Answer. A recent study performed by the National Park Service Radio
    Managers and Office of Information Resources Management staff
    identified the following short-term United States Park Police needs:
    improve the system's preventative maintenance; adjust telephone line
    interfaces and augment and better train communications staff; contract
    an engineering firm to analyze the radio system; and provide
    alternatives to correct cited problems including the conversion to
    narrowband operations and the availability of commercial and leasing
    options. The cost of the initial short-term needs has been estimated at
    $255,000. This amount is proposed for funding in fiscal year 2000 in
    the Construction and Major Maintenance appropriation.
        Long-term needs include implementing the results of the engineering
    study to include newer ``trunking'' technology and an increase of
    technical staff to include the New York and San Francisco Field
    Offices. It was further recommended that a Computer Aided Dispatch
    system be implemented to improve Park Police response time, automatic
    identification of callers, and officer location information. The cost
    to implement the long-term needs is estimated at over $13 million and
    will be addressed through funding proposals over a number of years.
        Question. How much has been spent on meeting those needs in fiscal
    year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. To date, the United States Park Police has spent less than
    $50,000 for this conversion.
        Question. How much will be dedicated for this purpose in fiscal
    year 2000, assuming the request level, and from what sources?
        Answer. The cost of the initial short-term USPP needs has been
    estimated at $255,000 and is proposed for funding in fiscal year 2000
    in the Construction and Major Maintenance appropriation account. The
    funds will be used to improve the system's preventative maintenance;
    adjust telephone line interfaces and augment and better train
    communications staff, contract an engineering firm to analyze the radio
    system, and provide alternatives to correct cited problems including
    the conversion to narrowband operations and the availability of
    commercial services and leasing options.
        The increase requested for ``Special Parks'' includes $2,661,000
    for the Park Police: $800,000 to operate and maintain the new
    helicopter and $1,861,000 to establish a higher base level for officer
    training.
        Question. At the request level, is the training of new officers
    likely to keep pace with officer attrition in fiscal year 2000 and
    fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. It is expected that the budget request will allow training
    to keep pace with the attrition rate.
        Question. Will the rate of attrition likely be exceeded?
        Answer. Funding is requested at a level intended to increase the
    number of Park Police officers, taking attrition into account. The NPS
    would like to build to an on-board strength of 625 officers, about 70
    more than is expected to be on-board at the end of fiscal year 1999.
    With $500,000 provided in fiscal year 1999, the proposed increase of
    $1.861 million for fiscal year 2000 would establish a base amount of
    $2.361 million dedicated to funding two recruit classes annually. Given
    the current rate of attrition, and the approval of the fiscal year 2000
    increase request, the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 recruit
    classes would allow the Park Police to reach a level of 625 sworn
    officers.
        Question. Assuming the requested funding is provided in fiscal year
    2000 and maintained in future years, when does the Park Service
    anticipate that the Park Police will reach fully authorized staffing
    levels?
        Answer. There is no ``authorized'' level of officers for the Park
    Police. The NPS has identified a need for 625 officers. The proposed
    increase for fiscal year 2000 would establish a base amount dedicated
    to funding two recruit classes annually. Given the rate of attrition
    and the current on-board strength, it would take three to four recruit
    classes beginning in fiscal year 2000 to reach 625 due to the current
    rate of attrition caused by retirements.
        Further requirements will be evaluated, with base funding for
    permanent salaries and support requested as needed. The base funding
    for the two recruit classes would remain to run subsequent classes. The
    Service believes this plan will allow the USPP staffing needs to be
    addressed in the most efficient and expeditious manner.
        Question. Assuming additional funds beyond the requested amount
    were available, what is the maximum amount of training that could be
    provided within the limitations of existing infrastructure, both in
    terms of numbers of recruiting classes and trainees?
        Answer. The National Park Service has identified a need for 625
    officers. Given the rate of attrition and the current on-board
    strength, it would likely take at least three to four recruit classes
    beginning in fiscal year 2000 to reach this number due to current high
    rate of attrition caused by retirements.
        The National Park Service's budget request for fiscal year 2000
    includes an important request to provide base funding for two recruit
    classes per year. This increase of $1.861 million, coupled with
    $500,000 provided in fiscal year 1999, would establish a base amount
    dedicated to funding two recruit classes annually. Plans are to conduct
    two recruit classes a year for the foreseeable future, should the
    funding request in fiscal year 2000 for base funding for recruit
    classes be approved. The $2.361 million would be used to cover salary
    costs for the 48 park police cadets (each class will contain 24
    candidates) during their training, travel, lodging expenses, initial
    uniform, equipment issuance, applicant physicals, background
    investigations, and incidental costs incurred at the Federal Law
    Enforcement Center (FLEC). At the conclusion of training, the new
    officers will fill existing funded vacancies. The funding for the
    recruit classes would continue to remain available for two more recruit
    classes every year, as needed. We believe this plan will allow the USPP
    staffing needs to be addressed in the most efficient and expeditious
    manner.
        Assuming additional funds were available to cover training costs,
    including the salary costs during training, a third training class
    could be undertaken. Additional funding to cover the permanent base
    salaries for this class at the conclusion of training might be
    necessary and would have to be addressed through the normal budget
    process. However, given current funding constraints, the NPS believes
    that the plan to implement two classes annually represents the best
    approach to raising the sworn officer strength to a minimum of 625.
        Question. What funds beyond those requested would be required to
    sustain training at this level?
        Answer. One additional Park Police training class for 24 trainees
    would cost an estimated $1,180,000 annually during the period of
    training.
                                    presidio
        The budget request for the Presidio is reduced to $5,850,000, a
    reduction of $4,239,000. This reduction flows from the continued
    transfer of responsibilities from the Park Service to the Presidio
    Trust.
        Question. Does this Department anticipate that the request for
    Presidio operations will decline further in fiscal year 2001? If so, by
    how much?
        Answer. The Department does not anticipate that the request for
    Presidio operations will decline further in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. At what level will funding requirements for the Presidio
    likely stabilize?
        Answer. The $5.85 million request for fiscal year 2000 is the
    stabilized long-term funding level. It meets the NPS continuing, long-
    term obligation to provide for Area A operational and site management
    expenses, including law enforcement, fire protection/emergency medical
    services, public safety dispatch, maintenance and facility management,
    utilities, administrative and management support, legal support,
    resource management, planning and compliance. The fiscal year 2000
    request also meets the NPS obligation set forth in the law establishing
    the Presidio Trust, to provide for visitor orientation and
    interpretation on all Presidio lands.
        Question. What is the current FTE level at the Presidio supported
    by Park Service appropriations?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 Presidio budget provides for an FTE
    level of 115.
        Question. What is the current level supported by the Presidio Trust
    through reimbursements?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999 the total FTE supported by the Presidio
    Trust through reimbursements is 53. Thirty-seven of this 53 FTE is for
    United States Park Police (USPP) law enforcement, through an
    arrangement mandated by the Trust law. In addition to USPP services,
    the NPS is providing the following other services in fiscal year 1999
    to the Presidio Trust on a reimbursable basis: maintenance (through
    December 31, 1998 only), environmental remediation management,
    environmental and cultural compliance, special park uses/special events
    management, planning and professional services, Advisory Commission
    support services, and miscellaneous administrative support.
        Question. What is the FTE level anticipated at the end of fiscal
    year 1999? Fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Current projections are that the NPS will utilize 115 FTE
    during fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, the NPS level will
    decrease to 73 FTE funded by NPS appropriations. Most of the decrease
    is due to the shift of 75 percent of the funds for the Presidio Fire
    Department and public safety dispatch operation from the NPS to the
    Presidio Trust within the fiscal year 2000 budget. In fiscal year 2000,
    the total FTE funded through reimbursable agreements is expected to be
    74, which includes the current 37 law enforcement FTE plus an
    additional 37 FTE for public safety dispatch services. The NPS does not
    anticipate the Presidio Trust to request any other reimbursable support
    over and above the 74 FTE.
        Question. How have the personnel reductions been handled to date in
    terms of numbers of RIFs, personnel maintained with Presidio Trust
    funds, etc.?
        Answer. The Presidio Trust law specified that no National Park
    Service employees would lose their jobs as a result of its
    implementation. The NPS, therefore, developed a Servicewide, voluntary
    priority placement program. This program, combined with retirements,
    the availability of a voluntary separation incentive, and hiring of NPS
    employees by the Presidio Trust, enabled the NPS to meet its downsizing
    targets. A major factor in the Service's success was its building of a
    high level of flexibility within the Golden Gate NRA /Presidio
    organization in anticipation of the need to downsize. Because it met
    its downsizing target for the Presidio, the NPS was able to suspend its
    priority placement program in March 1999. (The outplacement effort
    resulted in 22 career employees accepting voluntary separation
    incentives, 12 career employees being placed in other NPS units, and 45
    career employees accepting positions with the Trust). Aside from the
    already discussed reimbursable agreements with the Trust, no other NPS
    personnel are ``maintained'' with Trust funds.
        Question. Is the Department confident that the request for the
    Presidio represents the lowest funding level possible while still
    providing for appropriate Park Service management of Area A?
        Answer. The Department is confident that the fiscal year 2000
    request represents the lowest funding level that will provide for Area
    A management expenses, and provide for visitor orientation and
    interpretation expenses on all Presidio lands as mandated in the Trust
    law. It should be noted that NPS responsibilities for Area A today are
    far different from its responsibilities for the lands permitted to the
    Golden Gate National Recreation Area pre-base closure. Area A today is
    325 acres, more than double the pre-closure acreage permitted to GGNRA
    (even without including 423 acres offshore). Area A concentrates
    exceptional natural, recreational, and scenic resources, intense
    visitor use, and a host of complex and active planning and
    transportation issues. And unlike during the Army's tenure at the
    Presidio, the NPS is responsible for all operational, management, and
    supporting expenses. Virtually all recreational visits to the Presidio
    (an estimated 3 million annually) involve visits to the bluffs, trails,
    and beaches of Area A. Area A also includes the $25 million Crissy
    Field park development (including restored wetlands) which is being
    funded through a major community fundraising effort. As the very
    visible ``front yard'' of the Presidio, a safe and well maintained Area
    A is essential to Trust leasing efforts.
        Question. What would be the impact of an additional reduction of
    $500,000 in the Presidio's fiscal year 2000 budget?
        Answer. A large component of the fiscal year 2000 request is
    essentially ``fixed'' expenses, representing the Area A share for
    Presidio-wide law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical
    services, and public safety dispatch. Other fixed costs are for NPS
    utility and facility management expenses. The impact of a $500,000
    reduction would, therefore, need to be absorbed by the remaining
    programs, including maintenance, interpretation/visitor services,
    resource management, and administrative support. An estimated eight to
    ten positions would need to be cut. This would reduce Area A services
    below existing levels for many functions. When the NPS negotiated the
    split of functions and dollars with the Presidio Trust beginning in
    fiscal year 1999, with the exception of three additional maintenance
    workers added for Crissy Field, no programs were increased. Existing
    funding levels were divided between the NPS and Trust depending on who
    had the responsibility to provide each function. To absorb a $500,000
    reduction, the following cuts would need to be taken:
      --Reduce Area A maintenance by 20 percent. This eliminates two
            positions. Affected would be beaches, trails, and other highly
            visited areas, including the new Crissy Field park area during
            the critical new plant establishment phase.
      --Reduce interpretive and education programs conducted cooperatively
            with school districts, and reduce operations of the William
            Penn Mott Visitor Center. This would result in a decrease of 25
            percent, or two positions.
      --Reduced oversight of the Natural Resources Stewardship program
            which mobilizes community volunteers to provide 100,000
            volunteer hours annually to restore and protect wetlands,
            riparian habitat, creeks, rare and endangered species habitats,
            resulting in a decrease of 20 percent, or one position.
      --Curtail public and prospective tenant access to the museum
            archives, and reduce access, preservation, and accountability
            for the extensive museum collection transferred to the NPS from
            the Army. This would be a decrease of 15 percent, or one
            position.
      --Eliminate NPS oversight of approximately $25 million in
            environmental remediation activities in Area A, under a
            Memorandum of Understanding between the Army, Presidio Trust,
            and the NPS. Curtail ability to exercise NEPA and NHPA
            obligations with respect to Area A projects and planning, as
            well as cooperating agency role with respect to Area B. There
            would be a decrease in budget and contracting office support.
            (Eliminates up to four management and administrative support
            positions.)
        Additionally, to outplace the additional employees would
    necessitate the reactivation of the suspended Servicewide employee
    outplacement program and require re-identification of positions to be
    potentially eliminated.
        Impacts of this cut could still be greater, given current
    uncertainties in negotiations with the Presidio Trust on setting
    utility rates and other charges impacting the NPS.
                              energy conservation
        The justification indicates that a super energy savings performance
    contract is under development at Yosemite National Park.
        Question. What is the status of this effort?
        Answer. The park was in contract negotiations with the Department
    of Energy and The Bentley Company for eighteen months discussing and
    making modifications to the detailed energy study for the energy
    conservation project. The Delivery Order was signed by Yosemite
    National Park on April 15, 1999, by the Department of Energy in late
    April, and signed by The Bentley Company on April 29, 1999. Anticipated
    construction completion date is January, 2000.
        Question. What types of projects does the Park expect to undertake
    pursuant to this contract?
        Answer. Projects include lighting retrofits or replacement of
    lights in offices, campgrounds, and workshop stations throughout
    Yosemite National Park. In the campgrounds, the addition of a ``down''
    lighting system will protect the night skies of Yosemite.
        All PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyl's), contaminated capacitors and
    heavy metals such as mercury (from lamps) will be removed from the site
    and incinerated or recycled in accordance with applicable Environmental
    Protection Agency and State of California requirements.
        A voltage upgrade for the El Portal Maintenance Complex and the El
    Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant will be completed whereby Yosemite
    National Park will install their own distribution asset to replace
    equipment provided by the local utility. The new distribution assets
    will change the point at which the utility meters the park's electrical
    service. The utility will then charge a reduced rate reflecting the
    absence of a utility-owned distribution asset serving that location.
        The park will install variable frequency drives on aerator systems
    at the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plan. This will modulate the
    speed of the motors based on the monitored response provided by the
    oxygen sensors.
        A variable air volume conversion will be completed and a new set of
    dampers installed to vary the amount of supply air being delivered.
        The park will install a temperature based, air-side economizer on
    the air handling unit in the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant
    building.
        A boiler will be replaced at the Valley District Building. The
    existing boiler, #2 fuel oil-fired boiler, provides steam and hydronic
    hot water for heating as well as domestic hot water at less than 75
    percent efficiency. The new, higher efficiency boiler (90 percent
    efficiency) will reduce operating costs through an increase in
    efficiency over the existing boiler. The new boiler will be connected
    to the propane tank that will replace the old diesel tank oil burner.
    This new boiler can be modified for future conversion to natural gas
    that could be a future consideration.
        Finally, time of day controllers will control airflow for the
    existing HVAC system.
                         facility condition assessments
        The request includes a $2.5 million increase for the Park Service
    to initiate a detailed condition assessment of Park Service assets.
        Question. How will this $2.5 million project improve upon the
    current system, whereby asset protection, repair and rehabilitation
    needs are presumably assessed by park staff on a continual or annual
    basis and addressed through the budget formulation and new five-year
    planning process?
        Answer. Currently, inventory and condition assessment of National
    Park Service facilities and infrastructure is performed inconsistently
    and without uniformity. Because of this, the data generated are not
    considered to be uniformly reliable.
        The intention of the National Park Service is to institute a
    Servicewide program to collect detailed information on the most
    critical assets. This facilities inventory condition assessment
    information will provide a baseline against which remediation progress
    can be measured, which in turn will provide performance indicators upon
    which to base future management decisions and planning. The Service
    proposes to start an inventory condition monitoring process in fiscal
    year 2000 and include a more comprehensive needs assessment to assist
    the Service in determining which facilities are mission-critical and
    which could be excessed from our inventory. This process will
    acknowledge that, given limited fiscal resources, not every asset in
    the Park Service will receive the same level of attention, but will
    allow us to identify the most critical. Further, the Service will
    monitor the percentages of facilities improved from poor or failed
    condition, to good condition, as our principal performance measures and
    indicators in determining the efficacy of NPS regional maintenance
    programs.
        Question. Would these funds be better spent on actual repair and
    rehabilitation of park assets known to be in need of such work?
        Answer. The NPS first needs to establish an institutionalized
    Servicewide asset management program that includes a comprehensive
    needs assessment system to document an accurate inventory and condition
    assessment of National Park Service facilities needs that will fully
    identify deferred maintenance requirements in all national park areas.
    This will provide management with the necessary information upon which
    to base future management decisions and planning, as well as with sound
    data to measure progress.
                                      y2k
        The fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act included funds to
    address the Y2K computer problem.
        Question. How much has the Park Service received from this fund to
    date?
        Answer. The National Park Service has received $19,464,000 in Y2K
    Emergency Appropriations funding.
        Question. Has the availability of these funds obviated the need to
    use other funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for information
    systems or other related purposes? If so, how much?
        Answer. The NPS had estimated a total need of $45,000,000 to
    replace computers and computer related systems with Y2K related
    problems. The availability of Y2K Emergency Appropriations will not
    obviate the need to use other funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999
    for information systems or other related purposes.
        Question. Have these funds been reprogrammed for other purposes?
        Answer. No.
        Question. Has the availability of these funds obviated the need for
    any of the funds requested for fiscal year 2000 for information systems
    and related purposes?
        Answer. The availability of Y2K Emergency Appropriations will not
    obviate the need for any of the funds requested in fiscal year 2000,
    which include funds for the support of new web-based information
    systems (the Project Management Information System and the Operations
    Formulation System), continuation of the program to modernize equipment
    (especially in parks), and participation in the Department's financial
    systems integration. In addition, other information management
    requirements remain, such as the need to purchase software site
    licenses and enhanced system security.
                         external administrative costs
        The justification lists a number of unbudgeted GSA space rental
    adjustments, for which an increase of $1.471 million is requested?
        Question. What is the cause of the $444,000 increase at Santa
    Monica NRA?
        Answer. In April 1998, the headquarters and visitor center for the
    Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area were relocated from
    Agoura, California to Thousand Oaks, California under a GSA lease
    program. The new facility provides 5,576 square feet of additional
    space to accommodate a larger visitor center, office space for 25
    additional employees over the next five years, and an expanded visitor
    parking area. GSA space rental charges will total $444,000 per year for
    the Thousand Oaks location. The budget inadvertently included the total
    need without factoring in the current cost ($301,655) to lease the
    Agoura facilities. The budget overstated the additional need for Santa
    Monica for the Thousand Oaks location by this amount. The increase
    amount requested should be $142,345 rather than the $444,000 requested
    in the budget. But this apparent savings will likely be offset by other
    changes not always within the control of the NPS. For example, since
    the fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted, the NPS has determined that
    the Accounting Operations Center must be relocated from its current
    location in Reston, Virginia to another facility nearby, due to
    longstanding and unresolved problems with the current building and
    landlord. This move will result in an increased annual rent of
    $400,000.
        Question. How does the request for increased rental space at Brown
    v. Board of Education National Historic Site relate to the Monroe
    School rehabilitation project?
        Answer. The space provides for ranger offices, a library/resource
    room for researchers and visitors, and a video/exhibit room that
    accommodates groups of 50 to the site. Visitation to Brown vs. Broad
    has increased 160 percent since fiscal year 1997 and the rental space
    allows the park to accommodate this increase until the Monroe School
    rehabilitation project is completed.
        Question. Will the rental space be required once the Monroe School
    project is completed?
        Answer. No. The planning for the rehabilitation of the Monroe
    School had identified space on the 2nd floor to be allocated for
    administrative and ranger offices, along with a visitor exhibit area to
    be located on the 1st floor. This project is scheduled to be completed
    in 2002.
        The justification indicates that the $25,000 requested for leased
    space at the C&O Canal NHP is being sought in lieu of funds for
    construction of a new facility.
        Question. How does this request relate to the Construction funds
    appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the C&O Canal?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 funding approved for the new visitor
    center at Cumberland, Maryland in the amount of $1.2 million in fiscal
    year 2000 is to design and fabricate exhibits for expanding the visitor
    center at Cumberland, Maryland. None of these funds are for building
    construction or building renovation. The $25,000 is requested to pay
    for the lease of the physical space from the Canal Place Preservation
    and Development Authority.
        Question. Why is the Park Service both using funds to build or
    rehabilitate the visitor space as well as paying increased rent?
        Answer. The Service is not using funds to both build or renovate a
    visitor center and pay for increased rent. The fiscal year 1999
    appropriation was for the design and fabrication of exhibits that will
    be installed in leased space owned by the Canal Place Preservation and
    Development Authority (CPDA), a Maryland State Heritage area designee.
    The Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority is responsible
    for the renovation of the Western Maryland Railroad Station, 13 Canal
    Street, Cumberland, Maryland. The lower floor of the building will be
    devoted to depicting the history of the area with emphasis on the
    Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and its importance in the Cumberland area.
    CPDA is responsible for renovating and refurbishing the building
    proper. This space will be rented by the NPS under an approved plan for
    the Western Maryland Railroad Station via a cooperative agreement. CPDA
    is renting the space to the NPS at a greatly reduced rate to foster the
    presentation of history in western Maryland.
        The budget request includes an increase of $25 million for
    ``special park'' operations.
        Question. By what process was this list of park operational
    increases developed? Who was involved, and over what time period was
    the list developed?
        Answer. The specific park operational increases included in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget represent the highest priority needs of the
    Service as identified by its park managers. The priority setting
    process begins in the February/March time frame at the park level,
    almost a year prior to the submission of the NPS budget request to
    Congress.
        The park superintendent and other park professionals are in the
    best position to evaluate the relative merit and urgency of the need at
    their park. After the park identifies all unfunded needs over the
    coming five-year period and enters the requests into the Servicewide
    database for unfunded operational requirements--the Operations
    Formulation System--``park priorities'' are then set by park
    management. All increases at the park level are considered in the
    context of the park's Annual Performance Plan and the NPS Strategic
    Plan, as mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act.
        In the April/May time frame, the requests are reviewed at the
    appropriate Regional Office, where increases are ranked and prioritized
    by senior managers and executive committees of park superintendents,
    based on the urgency of the requirement, as well as on initiatives
    contained in the Departmental budget guidance and the budget priorities
    set forth by the NPS Director and the National Leadership Council. The
    funding requests are then forwarded to NPS headquarters where they are
    reviewed and evaluated for appropriateness in schedule, adequacy and
    accuracy of information, and consistency with policy. A Servicewide
    list of park increases is developed by the budget staff during late May
    and early June. Regional ``allocations'' for this Servicewide list are
    based on many factors, including the proportion of the operational
    funding level of a region to other regions, the soundness of the
    requests, the number of parks in a specific region, the types of park
    in a region, consistency in meeting certain initiative and policy
    requirements, and the total identified requirements of the parks within
    a particular region. In general a region such as the Pacific West
    containing a greater number of parks, including many of the most
    complex and larger parks in the System, would receive a greater
    proportional share of the increase than the smaller Midwest Region, for
    example.
        Once a preliminary list is developed, the increases are reviewed
    and approved by top NPS management, the Department and OMB. Though some
    specific new increases may come to light, or surface to match an
    initiative, the list submitted to Congress accurately represents NPS
    priorities within the context of overarching Administration initiatives
    and current fiscal constraints.
        Question. Please provide for the record lists of special park
    increases that would be provided if only a $10 million or $15 million
    increase were to be provided.
        Answer. All of the $25 million in park increases requested in the
    Budget Justifications represent high priorities of the Service. Should
    budget allowances preclude funding of the entire list of increases, the
    NPS has identified the following list of increases, totaling
    approximately $12 million, to be most urgent.

                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Park                      Funding request         Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American Memorial Park............  Improve Park Operations          $95
                                         and Protect Resources.
    Big Cypress NP....................  Manage 146,000 Acres of          353
                                         New Lands.
    Biscayne NP.......................  Restore and Protect Coral        320
                                         Reefs.
    Boston African American NHP.......  Maintain and Operate             250
                                         Restored Historic
                                         Structures.
    Buck Island Reef NM...............  Improve Law Enforcement          110
                                         to Protect Coral
                                         Resources.
    Cumberland Island NS..............  Protect and Interpret            300
                                         Plum Orchard Mansion.
    Denali NP and Preserve............  Expand Visitor Services          300
                                         and Increased Visitation.
    Devils Postpile NM................  Enhance Visitor Services          75
                                         and Protect Resources.
    Dinosaur NM.......................  Provide Partnership              144
                                         Support.
    Dinosaur NM.......................  Enhance Visitor                  114
                                         Experiences.
    Dry Tortugas NP...................  Establish Resources              240
                                         Monitoring for Coral
                                         Reefs.
    Eugene O'Neill NHS................  Maintain Resource and             50
                                         Provide Interpretation.
    Everglades NP.....................  Establish Oversight Team         250
                                         for South Florida
                                         Projects.
    Fort Clatsop NM...................  Provide for National             240
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Fort Union Trading Post NHS.......  Provide for National              84
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Grand Portage NM..................  Maintenance Program               32
                                         Support.
    Hawaii Volcanoes NP...............  Restore Science Program          165
                                         to Protect Resources.
    Home of FDR NHS...................  Complete Funding for              80
                                         Operations of Top
                                         Cottage.
    Homestead NM of America...........  Provide for National              28
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Independence NHP..................  Maintain Historic                499
                                         Structures and Grounds.
    Jefferson National Expansion        Provide for National              80
     Memorial                            Bicentennial Event.
    Kaloko-Honokonau NHP..............  Improve Park Operations          250
                                         and Protect Resources.
    Kaloko-Honokonau NHP..............  Protect and Monitor              100
                                         Marine and Water
                                         Habitats.
    Kalaupapa NHP.....................  Establish Coral Reef.....  .........
    Klondike Gold Rush NHP............  Operation and Maintain 15        287
                                         Restored Historic
                                         Buildings.
    Klondike Gold Rush-Seattle NHP....  Improve Visitor Safety            50
                                         and Park Operations.
    Knife River Indian Villages NHS...  Provide for National              97
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Lewis and Clark NHT...............  Provide for National             300
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Marsh-Billings NHP................  Establish Conservation           270
                                         Study Institute in New
                                         Park.
    Missouri NRR......................  Provide for National             128
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Natchez Trace Parkway.............  Provide for National              60
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Nez Perce NHP.....................  Provide for National             160
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Niobrara NSR                        New Park Operations on           449
                                         Niobrara Scenic River.
    National Park of American Samoa...  Initiate Coral Reef              125
                                         Monitoring Programs.
    Palo Alto Battlefield NHS.........  Provide Site                      61
                                         Interpretation and
                                         Visitor Services.
    Petroglyph NM.....................  Develop Visitor Services         111
                                         for Additional
                                         Management Areas.
    Petroglyph NM.....................  Protect and Maintain             165
                                         Ceded Management Areas.
    Richmond NBP......................  Operate Visitor Center...        250
    Saguaro NP........................  Provide for Protection           423
                                         and Study of New Lands.
    San Juan Island NHP...............  Provide Resource                  78
                                         Protection.
    Springfield Armory NHS............  Implement Resource               185
                                         Protection Program.
    Theodore Roosevelt NP.............  Provide for National             135
                                         Bicentennial Event.
    Trail of Tears NHT................  Improve Cultural                  57
                                         Resources Interpretation.
    United States Park Police.........  Establish Base Funding         1,861
                                         for Officer Recruit
                                         Classes.
    United States Park Police           Maintain Aviation                800
                                         Operational Upkeep.
    Virgin Islands NP.................  Provide Swimming Safety/         300
                                         Sanitary Beach
                                         Facilities.
    Virgin Islands NP.................  Protect Primary                  385
                                         Resources, Including
                                         Coral Reefs.
    War in the Pacific NHP............  Develop Coral Reef                85
                                         Management Program.
    White Sands NM....................  Implement Resource               161
                                         Protection Program.
    Wrangell-St. Elias NP and Preserve  Provide Services for             495
                                         Increased Visitation.
    Yellowstone NP....................  Provide Ecosystem                300
                                         Coordination.
                                                                  ----------
          Total.......................  .........................     12,007
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At the $16 million level, the following increases would rank next
    highest in priority, and would be additive to the previous listing:

                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Park                      Funding request         Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Badlands NP.......................  Actively Manage and             $238
                                         Monitor Black-Footed
                                         Ferrets.
    Bent's Old Fort NHS...............  Maintain Natural and             108
                                         Cultural Resources.
    Canyon de Chelly NM                 Implement Archeological          100
                                         Preservation Program.
    Casa Grande Ruins NM..............  Implement Permanent               50
                                         Resource Management
                                         Program.
    Cane River Creole NHP.............  Implement Resource               150
                                         Management and
                                         Protection.
    Cane River Creole NHP.............  Statutory Aid for Cane           100
                                         River Heritage
                                         Commission.
    Charles Pinckney NHS..............  Expand and Improve                75
                                         Educational Services.
    Christiansted NHS.................  Improve Visitor Services         165
                                         at 6 Historic Buildings.
    Denali NP and Preserve............  Establish Essential              500
                                         Telecommunications
                                         Operations.
    Fort Laramie NHS..................  Halt Deterioration of            145
                                         Historic Park Structures.
    Gates of the Arctic NP and          Educate and Involve              291
     Preserve.                           Public in Wilderness
                                         Planning.
    Hubbell Trading Post NHS..........  Enhance Maintenance and           67
                                         Curatorial Activities.
    Lowell NHP........................  Preserve Significant             500
                                         Historic Resources.
    Mammoth Cave NP...................  Provide Increased Sewage         220
                                         Costs for New Facility.
    Minute Man NHP....................  Protect Threatened               333
                                         Archeological Sites.
    Mississippi NRR...................  Operate Partnership               93
                                         Facilities in Science
                                         Museum.
    Point Reyes NS....................  Protect Critical Natural         106
                                         Resources.
    Redwood NP........................  Manage and Protect               490
                                         Endangered Species.
    Timucuan Ecological and Historic    Operate and Maintain New         354
     Reserve.                            Boat Docks.
                                                                  ----------
          Total.......................  .........................      4,085
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        $1.3 million is included within the special parks initiative for
    activities related to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
        Question. Is it the Park Service's intention to pull these
    increases out of those parks' base budgets following the bicentennial
    for allocation elsewhere?
        Answer. The Lewis and Clark bicentennial covers the years until
    2006. Activities commemorating the historic event will continue to
    build throughout the next seven years. The increases, which focus on
    education programs related to the significance of the expedition and
    its impact on the growth of the United States, will be incorporated
    into the daily operating programs of each of the parks. The NPS will
    evaluate the situation at each park as the end of the bicentennial
    comes closer to determine if the funds should remain in each park's
    base budget.
        Question. Is the increase requested for the Gateway Visitor Center
    at Independence NHP still necessary based on the estimated completion
    date of the visitor center itself?
        Answer. The Gateway Visitor Center is now scheduled to open in
    fiscal year 2001. At this time it does not appear likely that the
    $425,000 increase will be necessary during fiscal year 2000. When
    opened, the full annual NPS operational share of the Gateway Visitor
    Center remains unchanged at $1.7 million.
        Question. What was the genesis of the Conservation Study Institute
    proposed to be established at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP?
        Answer. Mary F. and Laurance S. Rockefeller gave the park to the
    United States ``so that the story of the conservation history of this
    country may be told and spread throughout the land.'' Public Law 102-
    350 (1992), ``The Marsh-Billings National Park Establishing Act'',
    directed the National Park Service ``to interpret the history and
    evolution of conservation stewardship in America.'' In 1993, the NPS
    and the Woodstock Foundation, convened a group of 50 conservation
    professionals from within and outside the National Park Service who
    recommended the new park develop a center as a key part of its
    interpretive and educational program for ``on-going research,
    conferences, and training in conservation stewardship, and using new
    technologies to provide access to primary resources related to the
    history and evolution of conservation in America.'' The 1999 Marsh-
    Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park General Management Plan
    and Final Environmental Impact Statement recommended that the Institute
    work with the University of Vermont to ``create opportunities for
    dialogue, inquiry, and lifelong learning in conservation history.''
        Question. Given the often cited operating shortfalls for routine
    maintenance and visitor service activities throughout the park system,
    why is this a priority?
        Answer. The Institute is a fundamental component of Marsh-Billings-
    Rockefeller National Historical Park's interpretive, visitor service,
    and educational program on stewardship and environmental leadership,
    reaching a broad audience of park visitors, students, educators, and
    professionals. This is a priority for accomplishing the park's core
    mission as defined in its enabling legislation and general management
    plan.
        Question. What would the University of Vermont be contributing to
    this effort?
        Answer. The University of Vermont's School of Natural Resources is
    contributing expertise in conservation history, and the related
    disciplines of conservation biology, management of natural resources
    and forestry, tourism, recreation management, social science, historic
    preservation, and geographic information systems. In addition, the
    University is assisting the park's educational efforts with state-of-
    the-art facilities for distance learning and computer technology. The
    University is contributing matching funds to involve faculty and
    graduate students in collaborative research with the park.
        Question. Why is $93,000 requested to operate partnership
    facilities at the Science Museum of Minnesota when the Park Service did
    not receive the funding requested in fiscal year 1999 to participate in
    this facility?
        Answer. At the time the budget was submitted, the NPS was
    optimistic of obtaining funding for the areas within the Science
    Museum--the Mississippi River National Center and the Mississippi River
    Exhibition Gallery. The Service is still investigating other avenues
    for funding. Nevertheless, the role and responsibilities of the NPS in
    interpreting the Mississippi River watershed would remain intact
    regardless of whether the NPS had a presence in the new Science Museum
    of Minnesota. The only question would be the means and location of the
    interpretation.
        Question. How is the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee
    currently financed?
        Answer. The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee is not
    currently financed. The participating members contribute to high
    priority projects from their operating funds.
        Question. What agencies other than the Forest Service and Park
    Service would be brought into the ecosystem planning and coordinating
    process?
        Answer. The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee plans to
    include the following agencies as members: The Jackson Elk Refuge, the
    Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Question. Is this the highest priority operating need identified by
    Yellowstone National Park?
        Answer. No, this is not the highest priority operating need for
    Yellowstone National Park. However, Yellowstone managers recognize the
    importance of establishing a proactive, ecosystem-based approach to the
    management of natural resources in the greater Yellowstone area. As a
    result, Yellowstone managers agree that the establishment of a Greater
    Yellowstone Coordinating Committee Coordinator represents a high
    priority for both the National Park Service and the Forest Service.
                      national recreation and preservation
        The justification indicates that all ongoing river studies will be
    complete in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. How many additional studies are likely to be initiated in
    fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. No new river studies were initiated in fiscal year 1999 and
    none are certain of beginning in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Does the Park Service expect a reduction in workload
    within this program beyond fiscal year 2000 as a result of the current
    river studies being completed?
        Answer. No. Studies for potential additions to the National Wild
    and Scenic Rivers System and the National Trails System are funded from
    the same account. The Old Spanish Trail study will continue in fiscal
    year 2000 and the Service anticipates one new trail study to be
    authorized this year, the ``Star Spangled Banner Trail,'' sometimes
    referred to as the ``War of 1812 Trail.'' This account also provides
    for other program needs and activities including management direction
    for river and trail studies and management planning and coordination
    with other agencies with responsibilities for river and trail studies.
        The justification indicates that publication of final rules
    regarding the National Natural Landmark program will be followed by
    distribution of the rules to affected landowners, and that the legal
    mandate for Section 8 report expires after 1999.
        Question. Has issuance and distribution of the final rules
    occurred? If not, when will this likely occur?
        Answer. No. Issuance in the Federal Register is expected to occur
    in May, 1999. Distribution will start within 10 days after that
    publication.
        Question. What are the significant changes in administration of the
    landmark program embodied in the new regulations?
        Answer. Significant changes in the administration of the National
    Natural Landmark (NNL) program include the following:
      --Owners of sites under consideration for possible national natural
            landmark designation are fully notified in advance of such
            consideration and have the opportunity to comment on the
            proposals. (This was always the general operating protocol but
            it is now more explicit in the regulations).
      --There is no entry onto private lands for purposes of new national
            natural landmark evaluation without written permission. (This
            was always the general operating protocol but it is now more
            explicit and requires ``written'' rather than verbal
            permission).
      --No property receives the national natural landmark designation if
            the owner requests within a specified period of time that their
            land not be designated. (This was ambiguous in the old
            regulations).
      --Owners of existing national natural landmarks can have the
            designation removed if they do so as specified in the
            regulations and within a specified time period.
      --The National Park System Advisory Board will review all future
            designations. (This was the procedure used in the 1970s and is
            being reinstituted).
        The effects of national natural landmark designation are described.
        Question. Does the Department intend to prepare a Section 8 report
    for 2000?
        Answer. No decision has yet been made as to whether the Department
    will prepare a Section 8 report for 2000.
        Question. With the release of the revised regulations and the
    uncertain status of the Section 8 reporting requirement, why are
    program needs not reduced?
        Answer. Since there has been a moratorium on listing activity since
    1989, the NPS expects a significant workload in evaluating new national
    natural landmark proposals once the final rules are published and
    distributed. Many designation proposals were in the final review
    process in 1989 and others were in earlier stages of consideration.
    These site evaluation reports will require updating per specifications
    in the new regulations. In addition, a few sites will be given priority
    to receive new onsite evaluations. Over the longer term, other sites
    that have never received onsite evaluations will need them. In the
    short-term, the Service also expects a significant workload responding
    to national natural landmark owner questions and requests.
        Finally, the fact that Section 8 reports are no longer required to
    be submitted to Congress does not mean that the NPS no longer has any
    interest in NNL conditions. National Park Service staff periodically
    visited these locations as a routine program procedure before the
    Section 8 requirement became law in 1976. With or without a formal
    Section 8 report, the NPS expects that its most significant workload
    will continue to be in maintaining contact with national natural
    landmark landowners, maintaining a general awareness of the condition
    of NNLs, and answering questions about existing national natural
    landmarks.
            national center for preservation technology and training
        Nearly $2 million was allocated in fiscal year 1999 for the
    National Center for Preservation Technology and Training in
    Natchitoches, Louisiana.
        Question. How is the work conducted at the Center distinct from
    work performed at other Park Service training facilities?
        Answer. The National Center for Preservation Technology and
    Training (NCPTT) in Natchitoches, Louisiana, serves as a research and
    development office within the National Park Service, and undertakes
    work through three components: research, training, and information
    management. The center researches and develops new preservation
    technologies, trains in new preservation technologies and advanced
    skills, and develops and dis tributes technical information.
        The work of the Center's training component is distinct from the
    work of other NPS training facilities in three chief ways: mission,
    audience, and partners.
        Mission: The training work of the National Center for Preservation
    Technology and Training focuses on (1) interdisciplinary approaches to
    preservation, including historic architecture, historic landscapes,
    archeology, objects and materials conservation and history, (2) turning
    advanced preservation research into preservation training
    opportunities, and (3) researching new training technologies and
    technology transfers applicable to training.
        Audience: In addition to NPS employees, NCPTT's training audience
    includes practitioners in State and local government agencies, and
    private practitioners.
        Partners: The National Center for Preservation Technology and
    Training training projects are completed in partnership with
    universities, non-profit and professional organizations, Federal State
    and local government agencies, and private practitioners.
        Question. Could efficiencies be gained from collocating the Center
    with other NPS facilities or programs?
        Answer. National Park Service programs that are devoted to
    archeology or historic architecture or training are distributed
    throughout the United States, and NCPTT shares expertise and projects
    with these programs. Although some efficiencies might be gained from
    co-locating the National Center for Preservation Technology and
    Training with another NPS facility or program, even greater
    efficiencies are gained from continuing and enhancing NCPTT's
    collaborations with the broad range of related Park Service programs
    and col leagues across the United States.
        Within the Statutory or Contractual Aid activity, the Park Service
    proposes to continue support for some entities while terminating
    support for others.
        Question. What criteria does the Park Service and/or the Department
    use in determining which of these programs will be included in the
    budget request?
        Answer. The primary consideration for continuing support for items
    within the Statutory or Contractual Aid activity is whether a
    particular entity has proper authorization. In recent years, the NPS
    has also begun to place a lower priority on statutory aid funding for
    organizations that could potentially be capable of self-sufficiency.
    This policy is expected to be continued in coming years, as funding is
    shifted to the support of legislatively established heritage areas.
                            save america's treasures
        A number of changes have been proposed in the statutory language
    relating to the Save America's Treasures program.
        Question. Does the Park Service plan to review or change the grant
    criteria that were used to allocate funds provided in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The criteria used to allocate fiscal year 1999 funds were
    primarily set by Congress in the language of the appropriations bill.
    The justification for the fiscal year 2000 language states that part of
    the reason for the requested changes in statutory language is to ``open
    up the eligibility criteria to also include non-Federal entities.''
        The justification states part of the reason for the requested
    changes in statutory language is to ``open up the eligibility criteria
    to also include non-Federal entities.''
        Question. Aren't non-Federal entities proposed to receive a
    significant portion of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. Yes. The nonfederal entities that are proposed to receive
    funds in fiscal year 1999 were all submitted through the following
    three Federal agencies: Institute of Museum and Library Services
    (IMLS), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and National Endowment
    for the Humanities (NEH).
        By law, the National Archives and Records Administration and the 24
    Federal agencies, departments, and organizations funded through the
    fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act were
    eligible to compete for Save America's Treasures funding. Although
    eligible to compete, IMLS, NEA and NEH are granting organizations that
    do not own intellectual and cultural artifacts or historic structures
    and sites, for which funding was provided. The House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees agreed that, for fiscal year 1999, these
    three agencies could accept applications from nonfederal entities,
    review the applications for completeness and eligibility for funding
    under the Save America's Treasures guidelines and project selection
    criteria previously approved by the House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees, rank the applications according to the Project Selection
    Criteria, and forward selected applications to the NPS as their
    agencies' submissions to compete for the national program awards.
        The following examples illustrate that each agency's mission,
    authorities, programs, and guidelines enable it to administer grants to
    nonfederal entities for the full spectrum of intellectual and cultural
    artifacts and historic structures and sites eligible for Save America's
    Treasures funding. These examples are meant to be indicative, not
    comprehensive.
    Institute of Museum and Library Services
        Under its Conservation Project Support program, the IMLS awards
    matching grants for a broad range of conservation activities.
    Applications for grants in the categories of Treatment and
    Environmental Improvement are particularly analogous to the types of
    applications received through the Save America's Treasures program. In
    addition, the guidelines for treatment grants state that an applicant
    may request funds ``to conserve, preserve, or stabilize collections and
    historic structures.''
    National Endowment for the Arts
        In the authorizing legislation for the NEA (20 CFR 26), the
    Congress declares that ``the Federal Government must transmit the
    achievement and values of civilization from the past via the present to
    the future,'' a philosophy echoed in the President and First Lady's
    multi-faceted Save America's Treasures initiative, of which the Federal
    grants are one component. The legislation further defines ``the arts''
    to include music, dance, creative writing, architecture, film and
    video, traditions practiced by the diverse peoples of this country, and
    numerous other disciplines (Section 952(b)). Finally, the legislation
    grants the NEA the authority ``to develop and enhance the widest public
    knowledge and understanding of the arts'' (Section 952(d)) and to
    renovate facilities (Section 952(d)(2)).
    National Endowment for the Humanities
        The NEA funds the full spectrum of cultural and historic resources
    for which it received Save America's Treasures applications, in
    particular through its Division of Preservation and Access and Office
    of Challenge Grants. Preservation and Access grants include support of
    the preservation of intellectual content and the stabilization of
    material culture collections, including through the proper housing and
    storing of objects and the improvement of environmental, security and
    safety systems that preserve collections. The Office of Challenge
    Grants provides funds for direct capital expenditures in cases of
    compelling need that clearly relate to improvement in the humanities.
             historically black colleges and universities (hbcu's)
        The justification indicates that roughly half of the $7 million
    appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for restoration of historically black
    colleges and universities has been awarded to specific institutions.
        Question. Have additional funds been awarded since submission of
    the budget request? If so, how much and to which institutions? If not,
    when will these awards be made?
        Answer. The second round of fiscal year 1999 HBCU grants (totaling
    $3.304 million) will be apportioned in June 1999, based upon the onsite
    condition assessments currently being completed by a multi-disciplinary
    team of historic preservation experts employed under a Cooperative
    Agreement with the Georgia Institute of Technology.
        Question. Does the Park Service anticipate that all of the funds
    requested for fiscal year 2000 will be awarded to specific institutions
    during fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Yes, all funds will be awarded during fiscal year 2000 to
    the HBCUs listed in section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
    Management Act (Public Law 104-333).
        Question. Is work at these sites likely to commence during fiscal
    year 2000?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Are matching funds available for all of the funds
    appropriated for fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. Yes, we believe that the required nonfederal matching funds
    are available.
        Question. Are matching funds likely to be available in fiscal year
    2000 for the funds requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget request?
        Answer. Yes, to our knowledge, the required nonfederal matching
    funds will be available.
        Question. Have any funds been awarded to institutions that have not
    secured a non-Federal match? If so, why?
        Answer. No funds have been awarded to institutions that have not
    secured a nonfederal match.
        Question. Why have some institutions been awarded grants in excess
    of the levels authorized in Public Law 104-333?
        Answer. There is authority to fund above specific school
    authorization amounts within the total program authorization amount, if
    a condition assessment identifies such a need. Of the 12 HBCUs listed
    in section 507 of Public Law 104-333, two Alabama HBCUs (Concordia
    College and Stillman College) received amounts in excess of the levels
    stipulated. At Concordia, $200,000 was authorized, but $276,842 was
    awarded to repair Bakke Hall. At Stillman, $250,000 was authorized and
    $295,649 was awarded to repair Snedecor Hall. In both cases, the
    decision was deemed necessary to ensure that critical preservation
    needs were addressed, that additional funding would not be required,
    and to guarantee that these buildings would be made safe and usable at
    the completion of the project. These funding decisions were made based
    upon the recommendations of the professional and experienced condition
    assessment teams assisting in this initiative. The total amount awarded
    in excess of the specified levels ($122,491) was drawn from the $6.1
    million that was not earmarked for specific HBCUs in the overall $29
    million authorization.
                          national constitution center
        The Statement of Managers accompanying the fiscal year 1999
    conference report included language urging the City of Philadelphia and
    the National Constitution Center to enter into a binding legal
    agreement under which the City would take responsibility for operation
    of the Center should the Center itself fail to be self-sustaining as
    planned.
        Question. Is the Department aware of any such agreement being
    drafted or under discussion?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior has been advised by the
    National Constitution Center (NCC) that a ``binding legal agreement''
    is not possible due to the City of Philadelphia's Home Rule Charter.
    The City cannot obligate funds beyond a given legislative year. The
    City has, however, appropriated $5 million dollars for fiscal year 2000
    as further evidence of its good faith intention to stand behind the
    project.
        The NCC has commissioned an accounting firm to evaluate its
    projected income and operating expenses. The draft study has confirmed
    the NCC's projections and anticipates an operating surplus for the
    facility. This study, however, has not yet been evaluated by the NPS.
                   everglades modified water delivery system
        The Justification indicates that $52 million has been appropriated
    for the Modified Water Delivery System at Everglades National Park.
        Question. How much of this amount has been obligated to date?
        Answer. The total amount obligated for the project to date is
    $33,614,906.
        Question. How much is expected to be obligated by the end of fiscal
    year 2000?
        Answer. An estimated $70 million, inclusive of obligations by the
    Corps of Engineers for infrastructure project obligations and of
    Everglades National Park for project management related costs, is
    expected to be obligated by the end of fiscal year 2000, if the
    President's budget request is enacted.
        Question. Are all of the completed projects within this program
    currently operational? If not, why not?
        Answer. The only project features that have been completed
    associated with the Modified Water Deliveries Project are the S-355 A&B
    structures and the raising of the Tigertail Indian camp. Both of these
    features are operational. The S-355A&B can release water into the L-29
    canal as intended but current operations and water level conditions in
    the region dictate that these structures not discharge any water. When
    regional conditions change to allow use of these structures, they will
    be operated to release water from Water Conservation Area 3B into L-29
    and Northeast Shark Slough.
        Question. What specifically will be done with the funds requested
    in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 funds will be used to:
      --Perform engineering analyses and design for seepage control
            features along the L-30/L-31N alignment (S-356 pump station
            feature);
      --Perform hydrologic modeling and feature designs for conveying water
            from Water Conservation Area 3A to Water Conservation Area 3B
            (L-67 A&C project features);
      --Perform engineering analyses and design associated with the raising
            of Tamiami Trail between L-30 and L-67 extension;
      --Complete NEPA compliance of the flood mitigation component for 8.5
            Square Mile Area; and
      --Remove derelict roads in the East Everglades.
                             construction projects
        The justification states that a portion of the funds requested for
    Fort Sumter will be used to clean up contaminates that have leaked onto
    NPS lands.
        Question. Why is the Park Service paying for this cleanup?
        Answer. As the Federal land manager of property on which releases
    of hazardous substances have occurred, the NPS has both the obligation
    and authority to respond to the releases in order to protect human
    health and the environment. Further, the NPS has the obligation to
    respond, assess, and restore injuries to park system resources
    resulting from the releases. Consequently, the NPS has proceeded with
    response actions at the tour boat facility. In addition, these response
    actions have been required for obtaining approval from State and
    Federal regulatory agencies to proceed with construction of the
    facility. A full investigation and remediation of the adjacent Calhoun
    Park Area site is being addressed by the South Carolina Electric and
    Gas Company (SCE&G).
        Question. Will the Park Service be reimbursed for these costs?
        Answer. The NPS is working with the DOI Solicitor and the
    Department of Justice to pursue recovery of all response costs and
    other damages. Approval of the NPS request for costs and damages, and
    authority to proceed to negotiations and/or litigation is being
    processed within the Justice Department. Although the time frame is not
    certain, approval is expected to occur in the near future. We will then
    seek reimbursement from responsible parties, including SCE&G. The South
    Carolina Electric and Gas Company has indicated an interest in
    resolving this matter without litigation. We expect to recover most, if
    not all, costs.
                                 glen echo park
        The justification indicates that $12 million in non-Federal funding
    will be available for the rehabilitation of facilities at Glen Echo
    Park.
        Question. What is the proposed source of the non-Federal funds?
        Answer. There are three proposed sources of non-Federal funding
    that will be available for the rehabilitation of facilities at Glen
    Echo Park. The sources are the Montgomery County and State of Maryland
    governments, and the Glen Echo Park Foundation.
        Question. How much of this amount is currently in-hand?
        Answer. To date, the Glen Echo Park Foundation has collected
    $270,000.
        Question. How much is expected to be available by fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. There should be $5,600,000 available in fiscal year 2000 if
    funding from all parties, State, County and Federal governments, is
    approved. The State of Maryland legislature has approved $1,300,000 for
    fiscal year 2000, contingent on receipt of matching federal dollars.
    The State has also given commitment for the full $6,000,000 over the
    next three years. Montgomery County is also committed to funding the
    project.
        Question. Have any non-Federal funds been spent on this project to
    date? If so, how much?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds have been spent on this project to
    date.
                                  fdr memorial
        Funds are requested to ``fulfill the Federal Government's
    commitment to construct an addition to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
    Memorial that would provide recognition of President Roosevelt's
    disability.''
        Question. Given that the use of Federal funds for this project
    directly contradicts the statute which authorized the addition to the
    Memorial, what has changed since passage of that Act that justifies
    Federal dollars being used for construction?
        Answer. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) Memorial, which was
    constructed using a combination of appropriated and privately raised
    funds, was dedicated on May 2, 1997 by President Clinton. On July 24,
    1997, President Clinton signed into law an act that directed the
    Secretary of the Interior to plan for the design and construction of a
    permanent addition to the FDR Memorial. The National Park System
    Advisory Board established the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Committee
    to advise the Secretary on appropriate recognition. Working with the
    designer of the FDR Memorial, Lawrence Halprin, the committee
    unanimously recommended a plan for the addition, which achieves that
    recognition while remaining consistent with the design criteria
    established for the entire memorial by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
    Memorial Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. The plan was
    accepted by Secretary Babbitt and announced by Vice President Al Gore
    on July 2, 1998. The forecourt will be created by Lawrence Halprin,
    Robert Graham, sculptor of the memorial's First Inaugural and Social
    Programs, and master stone carver John Benson, who designed the letters
    and carved the inscriptions in the memorial.
        The main entrance to the memorial will be reconfigured to create a
    forecourt that will be integrated into the whole with the same granite
    paving and walls, bronze sculpture, inscriptions, seating areas,
    lighting fixtures and landscape plantings used throughout the memorial.
    Located in the new forecourt will be a human scale statue of President
    Roosevelt in the small wheelchair he invented. The statue will be
    freestanding and located at grade to depict FDR as a person who was
    paralyzed, used a wheelchair, and was President of the United States.
    The granite wall behind the statue will contain associated bas-relief
    sculpture and carved quotations reflecting FDR's life before he became
    President. The artwork is bronze, placed in relationship to an
    extension of the large granite wall that acts as the spine of the
    memorial. The location of the forecourt is chronologically consistent
    with the order of the four outdoor rooms of the memorial, which
    represent the four terms of his presidency.
        The preliminary estimate for the project is $5 million, which
    includes both construction of the forecourt and acquisition of the
    artwork. The artwork--bronze sculpture and stone carving--will be
    funded through private donations of $1.5 million. The preliminary
    estimate for the design, engineering, and construction of the forecourt
    is $3.5 million. Construction costs include demolition and site
    preparation, substructure, pilings, a 74-foot long, 12-foot high
    granite wall to contain the artwork, a pair of granite seating walls
    totaling 142 feet, 2,600 square feet of granite paving, site furniture,
    utilities, lighting, landscape plantings, and irrigation.
        Existing law requires that the addition be constructed with private
    funds. The National Organization on Disability (N.O.D.) has agreed to
    raise $1.6 million for acquisition of the artwork and inscriptions,
    maintenance fund, and to cover the cost of fundraising. The Secretary
    is seeking authorization and an appropriation in the fiscal year 2000
    budget for the remaining $3.5 million necessary to construct the
    forecourt into which the artwork will be placed.
                                  dams removal
        $12 million is requested for projects related to the removal of the
    Elwha Dam.
        Question. Have funds appropriated for purchase of the dam been
    obligated? If not, why not?
        Answer. To date $29,915,000 has been appropriated for acquisition
    of the Elwha and Glines Dams, as authorized by Public Law 102-495. A
    small portion ($75,000) of these funds have been obligated at this time
    to begin the hazardous materials survey work required prior to
    acquisition of lands. Additionally, it is anticipated that a request
    for proposal for title services will be advertised in June, 1999, and
    funds will be obligated for title services. The source of these funds
    is $415,000 appropriated in Title V of the fiscal year 1998 Interior
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and identified as ``transaction
    costs'' over and above the amount of $29.5 million identified in Public
    Law 102-495 as the purchase price of the Projects (Section 3(b)).
        Per Public Law 102-495, Section 3(a), ``Effective sixty days after
    submission to the Congress of the report referred to in section 3(c),
    the Secretary [of the Interior] is authorized to acquire the Elwha and
    Glines Canyon Projects, and all rights of the owner and local
    industrial consumer therein, subject to the appropriation of funds
    therefor: Provided, That the Secretary shall not acquire the projects
    unless he has determined pursuant to subsection (c) that removal of the
    Project dams is necessary for the full restoration of the Elwha River
    ecosystem and native anadromous fish and that funds for that purpose
    will be available for such removal within two years after
    acquisition.'' in accordance with this clause, the actual purchase of
    the Projects may not occur until the Secretary has determined that
    funds are available for removal of the dams and restoration of the
    ecosystem.
        The National Park Service is diligently working to complete all
    steps of the acquisition process which may be done beforehand. This
    will allow obligation of the moneys to purchase the Projects as soon as
    funds for removal have been appropriated.
        Question. Why should Congress appropriate $12 million towards the
    removal of a facility it does not own?
        Answer. Congress should appropriate $12 million so that the
    Secretary may determine that the removal of the dams and restoration of
    the ecosystem can be accomplished pursuant to the requirement of Public
    Law 102-495.
                          everglades land acquisition
        The justification indicates that the ``Land Acquisition Limitation
    Amount Remaining'' for Everglades NP and Grant to the State of Florida
    is ``not applicable''.
        Question. Is there any limitation in existing law on either land
    acquisition in Everglades National Park or for grants to the State of
    Florida?
        Answer. There is no limitation in existing law for either
    Everglades National Park or for grants to the State of Florida.
                             equipment replacement
        The request includes an increase of $4,463,000 for the Equipment
    Replacement program, but does not explain how this increase will be
    used.
        Question. For which of the three components of the Equipment
    Replacement program, as identified in the justification, will these
    funds be used.
        Answer. $3,000,000 of the increase request will be used to continue
    the Service's modernization of its information resources management
    equipment and programs, and to cover the costs associated with annual
    maintenance fees in maintaining equipment and software. This program
    was not funded by Congress in fiscal 1999. The remaining increase of
    $1,463,000 will be used to further the Service's efforts to comply with
    provisions contained in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 which
    directed Federal agencies to convert all civilian Federal radio systems
    to the new technology known as ``narrowband.''; if accepted by
    Congress, total funds available for this program in fiscal year 2000
    would then be $2.5 million as $1.037 million was appropriated in fiscal
    year 1999 and is the ``base'' upon which this increase is being
    requested.
                     government performance and results act
        Question. How is your Department using performance information to
    manage the agency?
        Answer. On a park-by-park basis, performance information is used to
    identify strengths/weaknesses and monitor public perception.
    Servicewide, the information is utilized to analyze programmatic and
    resource needs.
        Question. How did program performance factor into your decisions
    about the funding you are requesting in fiscal year 2000? Please
    provide examples.
        Answer. Because the Service will not be able to use actual fiscal
    year 1999 performance until the end of this fiscal year (the first year
    required), it was not incorporated in the fiscal year 2000 request.
        Question. What specific program changes have you made to improve
    performance and achieve the goals established in your strategic and
    annual plans?
        Answer. There has been park-by-park improvements in park goal
    setting. The NPS has set Servicewide goals, developed standard
    performance indicators, and established a process for reporting
    performance.
        Question. How does your budget structure link resource amounts to
    performance goals?
        Answer. The budget structure is based on function and does not
    directly link resource amounts to performance goals. However, NPS
    Strategic Plan data bases include information to link resource amounts
    to performance goals.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in your budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. To establish a direct linkage, the NPS budget structure
    would need to reflect the mission rather than how the mission is
    accomplished. There may be options to explore to improve the linkage
    without changing the budget structure.
        Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance plan
    include performance measures for which reliable data are not likely to
    be available in time for your first performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. The Service expects reliable data for all goals except for
    the one regarding water quality. That goal is now being reworked for
    inclusion in a revised NPS Strategic Plan that will be finalized by the
    end of the year.
        Question. If so, what steps are you planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. All goals need to have objective, measurable performance
    indicators. The water quality goal is being rewritten to accomplish
    that, and other goals are being analyzed to improve the measurability
    and significance of their performance indicators, as needed.
        Question. How will your future funding requests take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance?
        Answer. We believe and expect that future funding requests will
    use, and be affected by, GPRA performance data, but cannot say how
    until we have those data at the end of fiscal year 1999. There are
    currently processes in the NPS GPRA system that allow for the changing
    of targets in annual performance plans based on changing conditions,
    including those caused by differences in expected versus actual
    appropriations.
        Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
    agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
    activities performed in support of that goal?
        Answer. There currently exist processes to reflect the full costs
    of resources being used by goal, both at the park and servicewide
    levels. The Service, however, is working to improve the linkage by
    which central office and other indirect spending is associated with
    specific agency performance goals.
        Question. For example, are overhead costs fully allocated to goals?
        Answer. Yes, they are, but improvements to this process are still
    being refined.
                            park service acquisition
        Question. The Park Service requests $5.7 million for Gettysburg
    National Military Park. Is this funding for the tower?
        Answer. As of March, 1999, appropriated funds in the amount of $5.1
    million are available for land acquisition at Gettysburg National
    Military Park. It is expected that some of these funds combined with
    some of the funds included in the fiscal year 2000 request for land
    acquisition at the park will be used to acquire the Gettysburg National
    Tower. However, an appraisal of the tower property has not yet been
    completed and approved by the service.
        Question. Do we have a willing seller and an agreed-upon price for
    the tower? If not, what do you recommend be done?
        Answer. Though the owner has indicated an interest in selling the
    tower property, the Service has not yet obtained and approved an
    appraisal of the property. Negotiations to acquire the property cannot
    begin until an appraisal is approved by the Service. The Service hopes
    that negotiations, once commenced, will be successful in permitting
    acquisition of the tower property for the amount of the approved
    appraised value. If not, the Service is permitted to file a complaint
    in condemnation and have the Court determine the just compensation
    required for acquisition of the property.
                              park service housing
        A March, 1999 report by the General Accounting Office assessed Park
    Service progress in the implementation of its employee housing policy.
    The GAO found ``some evidence to suggest that park managers have not
    accepted the new housing policy or the need to minimize the agency's
    housing inventory.'' The GAO also noted that there is a disincentive to
    implementing alternatives to in-park housing, as the funding for many
    alternatives would come from park operating budgets.
        Question. What is the Park Service doing to implement its revised
    housing policy?
        Answer. The National Park Service has begun to implement its
    revised housing policy. In response to Congressional direction the
    Service also undertook a park by park review of its housing needs based
    on the revised policy. Through this first phase (needs assessment) of
    the process, once the policy had a chance to be field-tested, there
    were instances where parks were able to apply the policy as written.
    Fifty-one parks have identified an excess in housing and have begun to
    reduce their inventories. In addition, 12 parks have located
    alternative housing which has resulted in those parks no longer needing
    employee housing on-site, which will result in inventory reductions.
        But there were other situations where park managers expressed
    serious concerns regarding their ability to fulfill their mission-
    related duties that must be further explored in order to fully
    implement the revised housing policy.
        Over the next few weeks, in conjunction with the continuation of
    the three-phase housing evaluation, which includes the physical
    inspection of units, Deputy Director Galvin will work with a group of
    senior level managers and regional representatives. This group will
    look at the stated housing policy and issues that include: housing
    assignments for cooperators; volunteers, and unpaid staff; housing
    assignments to protect historic structures; clarification of policy
    relating to response time and deterrence; and consistency of required
    occupancy assignments. The group will address whether or not
    refinements are necessary to interpret broader policy guidance.
        Additional inventory reduction decisions are anticipated in
    conjunction with the completion of the Condition Assessments. Final
    decisions on housing reductions will reflect a cost/benefit analysis
    for each park, which will allow managers to explore housing
    alternatives, where feasible, depending on mission need and facility
    condition findings.
        Question. What is being done or what can be done to remove
    disincentives that may lead park managers to rely too much on in-park
    housing?
        Answer. The NPS has completed the first phase in the evaluation of
    housing need. This needs assessment phase identified some alternatives
    to in-park housing. The next phases will be to identify the condition
    of housing inventory and conduct a cost/benefit analysis to aid in
    determining the best use of existing housing units. After these steps
    have been accomplished the NPS fully intends to explore further
    alternative approaches with the private sector. The NPS has not
    finished the process.
        Several parks have explored the feasibility of such alternatives as
    leasing in the private sector in lieu of on-site construction. We will
    continue to pursue alternatives
        Question. Does the Park Service agree that these disincentives
    exist?
        Answer. There may not be sufficient incentives for park managers to
    seek non-park housing.
        The NPS will continue to examine the costs and benefits of housing
    alternatives taking into account the unusual demands in isolated parks
    and the practice of relying on private markets for employee housing.
        Question. What can this Committee do to help remove these
    disincentives?
        Answer. The NPS hopes to work with the Congress to address the
    needs of the Housing Program, realizing that employee housing is
    intertwined in many other NPS programs. Changes to the housing program
    may ultimately affect other programs such as the historic leasing
    program, the employee relocation program, and the volunteer-in-parks
    program; and NPS goals such as diversity, retention, and recruitment.
        Principal reasons for not implementing some of the alternatives are
    budget structure issues, use of existing structures to meet historic
    preservation, resource protection, and/or visitor protection
    objectives. There may be a disincentive for a park since funding to
    lease housing and administrative space from the private sector, for
    example, would come from park operating funds and would compete for
    funding against all other park operating needs, while funding for
    housing is currently derived from the centralized construction account.
    Often, identified alternatives are not implemented largely due to cost/
    benefit analysis from either the viewpoint of the Service or potential
    partners or both. Many alternatives have significant budgetary
    implications.
        We hope that Congress will work with the NPS to develop incentives
    for park managers to explore and possibly implement alternatives.
    Implementing alternatives is sometimes not simple or within currently
    available resources or legal authorities of the agency.
        The NPS may propose new housing programs on a pilot basis or a
    demonstration program at a park site where the cost of housing in the
    private sector has proven to be prohibitive for essential seasonal
    employees. The NPS will examine the costs and benefits of housing
    alternatives, taking into account the unusual demands of isolated parks
    and the practice of relying on private markets for employee housing.
        Question. Does the Park Service agree with the suggestion by some
    park managers that the housing needs assessment is attempting ``to
    address a problem that does not exist''?
        Answer. GAO Reports and Inspector General audits have indicated
    that there is a problem. The NPS agreed that it would be beneficial to
    the agency to have an outside determination of need, and to have
    extensive information on the private housing markets near park areas.
        The Service hopes Congress will consider and appreciate the
    significant portion of work already accomplished and the commitment
    shown by many top managers. NPS hopes that Congress will support the
    NPS as we continue the process.
        The Contractor retained to conduct the housing needs assessment
    arrived at a far different needs assessment about total housing needs
    than did park managers.
        Question. Has the Park Service developed an official agency
    position regarding the total housing need that narrows or eliminates
    this gap?
        Answer. The NPS's main goal is the same as Congress' goal that we
    have a carefully thought out, prudent, and justifiable basis for
    building and maintaining employee housing where appropriate. As stated
    earlier, the NPS is currently, in conjunction with the other phases of
    the housing evaluation, looking at the stated housing policy and the
    need for refinement or amplification of that policy.
        It must be stressed that the Service will not be removing
    structures that are in good condition, where the economic analysis
    favors continued use. In those instances where the contractor and park
    managers are in agreement with the numbers of units needed the park can
    immediately take necessary steps to reduce inventory. In instances
    where there is a difference between the contractor findings and the
    park, no action will be undertaken until all three phases of the
    process are complete. Further decisions as to the future of any units
    may need to wait until the other phases of the evaluation have been
    accomplished. However, it must be stressed that as the NPS works to
    reach manageable decisions regarding housing management the NPS will
    not be able to develop an official agency position on an appropriate
    number of total housing units needed Servicewide that will be fixed.
    The additions of new park areas, park expansions, changes in park need,
    based on mission-related activities, and changes in local market
    availability will prohibit the NPS from identifying an appropriate
    number of housing units needed that will not change. Park managers will
    continue to re-evaluate their housing needs and will be expected to use
    feasible cost/beneficial alternatives and reduce inventory where
    possible. The NPS housing need will be evaluated on a regular basis,
    and it is not unreasonable to expect that the need will change during
    these evaluations, either in the form of a reduction or increase in
    inventory.
        Question. If not, will this be done?
        Answer. As stated above, the NPS is working steadfastly at reaching
    a justifiable number of housing units, however, this number will not be
    static. NPS housing needs that will provide adequate necessary services
    for the protection of Government property while taking into account the
    availability of private-sector housing and the mission of the park will
    require a continual re-evaluation. Not only will NPS needs likely
    change but also the availability of private sector housing will
    probably change. Measures have been put into place already that will
    require park managers to re-evaluate their needs based on private
    market availability every two years, and when funding is requested that
    need will be re-evaluated on a annual basis.
                            Bureau of Indian Affairs
                      contract support on tribal contracts
        The federal government, particularly the Indian Health Service and
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is facing severe financial penalties from
    litigation related to contract support costs for contracts with tribes.
    The Bureau, which has been contracting with tribes longer and which
    has, up to this point, refused to negotiate or pay direct costs such as
    workers compensation and unemployment, is in slightly better position
    than the Indian Health Service, which does pay direct costs. However,
    as part of the recent discussions between tribes and the federal
    government to address the problems, the Bureau is re-evaluating its
    position on direct costs. A decision to begin paying direct costs could
    further obligate the federal government between $10 and $30 million a
    year, according to the General Accounting Office.
        Question. Please address any re-evaluations the Bureau and the
    Service might be making. Why did the Administration fail to request
    full funding for contact support?
        Answer. The Bureau is working in collaboration with the Indian
    Health Service and Tribes and expects to release a report on contract
    support in June, 1999. As part of this process, the Bureau has been re-
    evaluating the payment of direct contract support costs at the request
    of Tribes who are requesting payment of these costs, including
    potential increases in the amount required to cover such costs. The
    Bureau is in the process of finalizing its report on this issue. As the
    report is not yet finalized, results are not yet available.
        The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes an increase
    of $6,109,000 for Contract Support, which will meet approximately 84
    percent of Tribes' contract support need in fiscal year 2000. Competing
    priorities in the Bureau's budget did not allow all categories of needs
    to be requested for funding at the 100 percent level. Contract Support
    is just one of many under funded programs and priorities identified
    within the Bureau's budget. To fully fund one program would mean less
    funding for other priority programs. There are just not sufficient
    resources within the target funding levels to meet all the needs in
    Indian Country.
                                      gpra
        Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance based management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. The Bureau developed a Strategic Plan in 1997 and is
    currently amending the Strategic plan in accordance with the
    requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and
    guidance developed by the Departmental Performance Management Office.
    The Plan sets forth mission goals for each budget sub-activity level
    and outli nes performance management areas for each.
        Recognizing the importance of achieving the intent of GPRA, the
    Bureau established an office to serve as the primary strategic planning
    contact for the Bureau to coordinate and provide oversight on GPRA
    efforts. To ensure participation on a nationwide basis throughout the
    Bureau, each of the Bureau's 12 Areas and all Central Office
    directorates have established GPRA coordinators. The staff serve key
    functions and are responsible for the collection and submission of
    quarterly performance data as well as serve as the first line of
    analysis in determination of goal achievement. This was part of the
    first phase of implementation of GPRA on a Bureau-wide basis.
        Meetings have been held with the GPRA coordinators nationwide to
    ensure full compliance with the Strategic Plan and Annual Performance
    Plan. In addition, senior Bureau managers have taken an active role in
    working to achieve the success of these efforts. With quarterly reports
    underway, the Bureau has been able to target areas needing refinement
    to achieve improved measurement of performance activities needed to
    achieve the Bureau's mission.
        Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. The Bureau has efforts underway to incorporate the
    achievement of the GPRA performance goals within individual performance
    plans for staff at all Bureau levels. Senior managers are held
    accountable for the submission of quarterly performance data within the
    prescribed time lines as well as other GPRA requirements with a
    reflection of compliance affecting their individual performance
    reviews.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. The Bureau is providing quarterly reports to the Department
    which outlines its progress towards goal achievement. The Bureau
    reviews these reports to determine its current state of affairs with
    regard to goal achievement. The report allows program managers to
    determine what areas of their program may be falling short of goal
    attainment and subsequently allows focus on these areas to accomplish
    the goal.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. The Mission goals in the Performance Plan were developed at
    the budget subactivity level and all areas of the Bureau's fiscal year
    2000 budget request relate to achievement of the mission and the
    accompanying goals. Requested increases were directly related to
    attainment of the performance goals outlined in the fiscal year 2000
    Annual Performance Plan. Denoted below are examples of the direct
    correlation between the Annual Performance Plan and the fiscal year
    2000 budget request:
      --$2,565,000 was requested for Tribal Courts to allow for the
            implementation of Stage 2 of the 5- year plan to meet the
            requirements of the Indian Tribal JusticeAct. Goal
            01.01.02.01.00.
      --$1,292,000 was requested to support increasing the number of
            Endangered Species benefiting from the Endangered Species
            program. Goal 03.07.01.05.00.
      --$2,000,000 was requested to support rehabilitation of Adult Care
            Facilities to allow them to qualify for State Medicare Provider
            status, which would allow their current funding to be available
            to offset other human services needs. Goal 02.02.01.03.00.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plans?
        Answer. With the Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance Plan
    established for the Bureau, program managers are refocusing their
    efforts on how to accomplish the goals and overall mission of the
    Bureau. Key in this effort has been changes in the instruction provided
    to field staff on the front line of providing Bureau programs to Tribes
    on what is to be achieved and focused on as well as reporting
    requirements for compliance.
        The Bureau continues to maintain an open forum with the Bureau's
    GPRA coordinators, providing not only dialogue on the current state of
    affairs, but also in providing training to improve their development in
    attaining the goals set forth in the Plan. This has allowed valuable
    input from field staff (``the front line'') in refining the goals to
    reflect the performance to be achieved and improve accountability for
    field participation in performance achievement.
        The Bureau utilizes the quarterly reports to assess attainment of
    the established goals. Using this information, the Bureau will continue
    to focus on areas in need of refinement to achieve its mission as well
    as ensure accountability of its program managers throughout the Bureau.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performancegoals?
        Answer. The organization of the Bureau's fiscal year 2000 Annual
    Plan and its fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects the Department's
    approach to improve and streamline the Plan to improve its link with
    the budget. The Plan presents the Bureau's goals and measures,
    consistent with the core of the Strategic Plan and budget proposal. The
    Bureau's Plan includes a section in each goal category which lists the
    related budget accounts and activitie s which tie back to the Bureau's
    budget structure.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. To have a total mirror comparison between the Bureau's
    budget structure and the Annual Performance Plan, a major overhaul of
    the current budget structure would be required. The Plan is structured
    on its foundation of the Mission Goals and accompanying annual goals
    which crosses many of the current budget categories in the existing
    budget structure. The budget structure is based on recommendations
    adopted by the Joint Task Force on Reorganization of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs based on its intent to illustrate how funds were
    distributed and expended.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. Several of the goals established in the Bureau performance
    plan only collect data for actual statistical figures on an annual or
    mid-year basis.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. The Bureau's reporting efforts for fiscal year 1999 have
    included providing quarterly narrative status for the goals. These
    narratives outline the Bureau's efforts and progression toward
    attainment of the goal targets and allows for review of program
    performance for potential areas of default.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
    consideration actual perf ormance compared to expected or target
    performance.
        Answer. The Bureau will take into consideration the degree of
    attainment of the goals in the Annual Plan to determine what action is
    necessary to improve performance.
                           Office of Insular Affairs
                                 virgin islands
        Question. According to the agency's budget justification, the
    Virgin Islands has been running deficits in excess of $100 million
    since fiscal year 1996. Recently, the Island's fiscal problems have
    gotten even worse. Indeed, just this month, Department of the Interior
    officials informed staff that the Virgin Islands' government would
    likely not meet its full payroll obligations. What, if anything, is the
    Department of the Interior doing to assist the Virgin Islands'
    government with this fiscal crisis?
        Answer. Long before the Virgin Islands' current fiscal crisis, the
    Department of the Interior identified weaknesses in the Virgin Island
    government's financial management apparatus and provided resources to
    address the problem. The Department of the Interior sought and received
    a fiscal year 1996 Supplemental Appropriation of $9,450,000 to address
    the destruction of then DOI-owned Water Island from Hurricane Hugo
    ($3,790,000) and the financial management deficiencies in the local
    government. We informed the Government of the Virgin Islands that the
    supplemental request had been approved and asked them to prepare
    proposals indicating how funds could be utilized to improve financial
    management. In July 1996, a team of OIA officials met with Government
    of the Virgin Islands officials and proposals were later submitted by
    representatives from Finance, Internal Revenue, Public Works, Office of
    Management and Budget, the Roy Schneider Hospital, and the University
    of the Virgin Islands. The supplemental funds for financial management
    improvements were broken down in the following manner: $3,000,000 for
    VI Department of Finance, $1,092,000 for VI Bureau of Internal Revenue,
    $1,200,000 for USDA Graduate School, and $20,000 for the VI Office of
    Management and Budget.
        These amounts went toward comprehensive financial management
    systems improvements including the purchase of software and hardware
    for computer systems upgrades and training. Although the immediate
    purpose of the emergency supplemental funding was to strengthen the
    Virgin Islands government's ability to effectively and accurately
    manage and account for the infusion of FEMA disaster assistance, these
    investments made permanent improvements in the Virgin Island
    government's financial management capabilities. More recently, in June
    1997 at the request of former Governor Schneider, OIA provided the
    Virgin Islands government assistance to develop an immediate-term
    action plan for fiscal recovery. On June 5, 1997, OIA awarded the
    Virgin Island's $275,000 for that effort and stipulated that if OIA was
    satisfied with the immediate-term plan, additional funds would be
    provided in fiscal year 1998 for the completion of a five-year fiscal
    recovery plan. The Virgin Island's selected Consultants for Resource
    Evaluation (CORE), a Washington, D.C. based management consulting firm,
    to develop the immediate-term action plan. OIA was pleased with the
    immediate-term fiscal recovery plan submitted by CORE. They have
    instituted aggressive procedures for the collection of back taxes from
    both individuals and businesses, the hospital instituted procedures to
    collect monies owed by individuals and insurance companies, and the
    Virgin Islands renegotiated the insurance premium cost for insuring
    government property. In addition, the island government analyzed the
    possibility of privatizing or leasing certain government functions such
    as the VITRAN public transportation.
        On April 10, 1998 DOI provided the Virgin Islands $650,000 for
    Phase II of the VI Fiscal Recovery Plan. Phase II calls for the
    implementation of a comprehensive five-year action plan which will lead
    to fiscal recovery. The five-year plan will include an economic
    development strategy and an offshore private sector investment
    development strategy. The efforts of CORE were applauded by Governor
    Turnbull's new administration. OIA's most recent efforts with respect
    to the Virgin Islands' latest fiscal crisis are discussed in the next
    response.
        Question. Does the Department have any other proposals besides
    permitting the Virgin Islands to keep all of the U.S. excise tax on
    rum, that would help the government with its financial problems?
        Answer. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Governor
    Charles Turnbull met in January 1999 to discuss the plight of the
    Virgin Islands. Their discussions resulted in the establishment of a
    Joint Virgin Islands/Federal Fiscal Recovery Task Force. The Federal
    group is comprised of representatives from the White House, the
    Department of the Interior, and FEMA. The objective of the task force
    is to develop additional ideas and options for addressing the Virgin
    Islands' fiscal crisis. Such options include, but are not limited to
    enhancing natural resources in the Virgin Islands to spur tourism and
    to consider the possibility of providing debt relief to the Virgin
    Islands' government for FEMA Community Disaster loans from Hurricanes
    Hugo and Marilyn.
        In addition, in response to a request from Governor Turnbull, the
    Department has agreed to help fund the preparation of the 1998
    financial statement and a Single Audit of 1995. The urgency of this
    request was underscored by an OIG report last September on deficiencies
    with the Interfund Loan and Federal Grant Balances. OIA has committed
    $400,000 of Technical Assistance funds to assist the GVI with their
    audit. OIA has asked the Virgin Islands to provide us with a detailed
    scope of work. To date, we have not received the aforementioned
    documentation.
        Question. If the Congress, agreed to the Administration's proposal
    to allow the Virgin Islands to retain all of the excise tax on rum,
    should there be a requirement that this revenue be de dicated to
    reducing the Islands' budget deficits?
        Answer. DOI believes that the additional revenue from the retention
    of rum excise taxes should be linked to the reduction of their budget
    deficit, while providing some flexibility to address immediate
    concerns.
                                 american samoa
        Question. What, if anything, has the American Samoa government done
    to address the issue of unpaid medical bills to Hawaiian hospitals?
        Answer. According to a recent letter from Governor Sunia to the
    Office of Insular Affairs, the American Samoa Government (ASG) has paid
    out over $5,000,000 for unpaid bills in the last year to medical
    hospitals in Hawaii. The ASG Treasurer and his staff have been writing
    letters to the creditors in an effort to reconcile billing statements
    with original invoices. ASG has instituted a payment schedule with
    those creditors who have completed a reconciliation. The OIA has not
    received from ASG a list of which creditors they have reconciled with
    and to what extent the payment schedules it has instituted will satisfy
    those creditors.
        Question. What role has OIA played in trying to resolve this
    problem? What recommendations does the agency have to expedite
    resolution of this issue?
        Answer. OIA has worked closely with the ASG to resolve the problem
    of unpaid medical bills to Hawaii hospitals. In efforts to assist ASG
    resolve this issue, OIA has recommended that hospital officials
    investigate alternative financing, including funding efforts to explore
    the use of private and government sponsored medical insurance. In
    addition, OIA has repeatedly recommended that the Medical Center
    Authority increase hospital fees. The current fee for an out-patient is
    $2.00 and the in-patient fee is $7.50 a day; yet, the estimated daily
    medical cost to the hospital per patient is approximately $400.00 per
    day. OIA has also suggested to hospital officials that it allocate a
    portion of its operations subsidy to revolving accounts with certain
    medical providers or suppliers to enable the Medical Center to purchase
    pharmaceutical and medical supplies without interruption.
    Unfortunately, the hospitals are a few of the many vendors who are owed
    substantial amounts of money from ASG. The OIA has had several
    discussions with medical providers in and out of Hawaii to get an
    accurate accounting of ASG's debts related to medical services.
                             coral reef initiative
        Question. The agency proposed to spend $1,000,000 on the Coral Reef
    Initiative in fiscal year 2000. How will these funds be allocated to
    various projects? What specific projects will be funded?
        Answer. OIA will use the $1,000,000 to fund the highest priority
    needs for coral reef protection identified by the insular areas in the
    U.S. Islands Action Plan (Plan). The Plan, developed in 1997,
    identifies approximately $3,000,000 of high priority actions and needs
    for protecting and managing coral reefs in the insular areas. These
    activities range from research and development of restoration
    techniques to education and outreach on management and protection of
    coral reefs in local communities. Several of the priority projects
    identified in 1997 have been initiated with current OIA funding. For
    example, in fiscal year 1999, OIA funded research to develop techniques
    for the mass culture of coral larvae, a ``coral reef road show'' to
    educate villages about the value of coral reefs, and development of a
    CD-ROM for use in Guam's public and private schools. OIA is sponsoring
    a workshop to revise and update the Plan in conjunction with the 1999
    Coastal Zone Management meeting in July. The updated Plan will likely
    contain similar themes, with specific requests incorporating the
    lessons learned from recent projects and addressing recent events that
    have affected the health of coral reefs in the insular areas. OIA
    funding for fiscal year 2000 will be allocated to those projects that
    are given the highest priority ranking in the revised Plan and are
    deemed both feasible and potentially successful in achieving the goals
    put forth in the Coral Reef Initiative.
        Question. What other agencies is OIA working with on this
    initiative? How does OIA's role fit with these other agencies?
        Answer. OIA works closely with the Geological Survey, Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and National Park Service within the Department, as
    well as the other Federal agencies that are members of the Coral Reef
    Task Force (e.g., NOAA, EPA, Department of State, USAID), to develop
    and implement coral reef protection programs. OIA plays a key role in
    the coordinated Federal effort to conserve coral reefs, with staff
    serving on the Coral Reef Task Force and chairing the Task Force's
    working group on Ecosystem Science and Conservation. These interagency
    groups are the principal mechanisms for coordinating the Federal effort
    to address the dramatic decline of coral reefs worldwide:
    representatives from the various agencies work together to identify
    priority actions and coordinate funding decisions. OIA is one of the
    leaders in this Federal effort and works with its partners to avoid
    overlap and ensure that different agencies' projects are complementary.
        OIA also plays a unique role in the Federal effort to conserve
    coral reefs in that it is the only agency specifically authorized by
    Congress to provide the territories with technical assistance to manage
    and protect their natural resources. This authority is significant,
    considering that ninety-five percent of the Nation's estimated
    1,786,500 acres of coral reefs and associated habitats are located in
    the insular areas. Over the past few years, OIA has worked with NOAA
    and the island governments to develop strategies and plans, laid out in
    the U.S. Islands Action Plan (Plan), to address coral reef protection
    and management for each island as part of the U.S. Coral Reef
    Initiative. At its recent meeting, the Coral Reef Task Force adopted a
    resolution that the projects identified in the updated version of the
    Plan would be given priority consideration for receiving any new
    Federal funds appropriated for the coordinated coral reef effort. OIA
    will play a critical role in this process, sponsoring a workshop to
    update the Plan and providing direct funding to implement the
    priorities that are identified. In addition to its direct assistance,
    OIA also plays an important role in facilitating the interaction of
    insular area representatives and Federal agencies, highlighted by the
    Task Force's decision to invite the governors of the Commonwealth of
    the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and
    the U.S. Virgin Islands to become full members of the Coral Reef Task
    Force.
                                brown tree snake
        Question. How much has been spent to date by OIA on the Brown Tree
    snake program? What are expected expenditures over the next three
    years?
        Answer. As of May 1999, $5.6 million has been obligated on the
    Brown Tree snake program. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Brown Tree snake program totals $2.6 million. We have not yet developed
    estimates for this program for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
        Question. What progress is being made in research on biocontrols
    and other methods to control or eradicate the snake? When will this
    research result in on-the-ground application?
        Answer. Improved traps and barriers are two examples of research
    into controls that have already resulted in ``on-the-ground''
    application. We expect significant improvements in barrier design to be
    placed in operation this year and have set aside $300,000 for barrier
    construction. Some of the other critical research still needs more
    testing before we can begin application. This includes the use of
    fumigants and toxicant, that require both testing and regulatory
    approvals. The use of heat and electronic sensors are still in early
    research stages, as is development of artificial attractants.
    Artificial attractants, as a substitute for live bait in traps (usually
    mice), is extremely important for ultimately detecting small snake
    populations and delivery of toxicant or biocontrols. In the area of
    biocontrols, most of our research to date has been on viruses, and we
    are now looking at ways to upset the reproductive process. We are many
    years away from field testing in this area. Biocontrols may represent
    the ultimate ``silver bullet'' that will allow eradication of snakes
    over large areas, but it is a long-term process that must be subjected
    to serious epidemiology studies and environmental safeguards.
        Question. What other agencies is OIA working with on the Brown Tree
    Snake?
        Answer. In addition to the Department of the Interior, the Brown
    Tree Snake program relies on efforts from the Departments of Defense,
    Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation. We also work with State
    agencies in Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Within the
    Department of the Interior, program efforts involve the Biological
    Resources Division within USGS and the Fish and Wildlife Service, as
    well as OIA and the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
    Budget.
        Question. What is the nature of OIA's role in connection with these
    other agencies?
        Answer. OIA's major role is to fund research and operational
    efforts and make sure the work is performed as agreed; to coordinate
    interagency efforts by developing a Memorandum of Agreement and
    arranging meetings and briefings with signatories; and to brief and
    advise the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget on
    priorities and needs for current and future years. The Assistant
    Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget is the principal manager
    for this interagency effort. We enter into reimbursable support
    agreements with the USGS for research, with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service for planning and support, and with the USDA for research and
    control efforts on Guam. We issue and manage annual brown tree snake
    control grants to Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the State of
    Hawaii. For the last three years, we also have administered grants to
    the Smithsonian Institution (National Zoo) for research they are
    performing on snake viruses.
                               impact assistance
        The agency proposes taking $5,400,000 in capital improvement grants
    to CNMI for the next three years and giving it to Guam as impact
    assistance.
        Question. How was the amount of funds for capital improvement
    projects to CNMI initially established? Was it done by mutual agreement
    between CNMI and the United States?
        Answer. The special representatives of the President and the
    Governor of the CNMI initially established the amounts of funds when
    negotiating the third Agreement of the Special Representatives of
    Future Federal Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands.
    The agreement was signed on December 17, 1992.
        The Agreement called for Federal and Commonwealth contributions of
    $120,000,000 each during a seven-year period (1994-2000) and contained
    a schedule for matching ratios. The Federal matching ratio was to be 71
    percent in 1994, and would fall to 29 percent in 2000. The
    Commonwealth's contributions complemented the Federal share.
        The Third Agreement was never carried out in this format. Because
    Congress did not act on the new Agreement until 1996, the CNMI
    continued to receive $27,720,000 in annual Covenant grants in fiscal
    year 1993, fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. The grants were
    administered as if the Third Agreement was in effect, with CNMI
    providing matching funds of 20 percent, 26.6 percent, and 40 percent.
        The enactment of Public Law 104-134, the fiscal year 1996 Omnibus
    Appropriations Act, changed the original amounts and the matching
    ratio. To approximate the $240 million program stated in the Agreement,
    Congress mandated Federal and Commonwealth shares of $77 million each,
    and added the amount of the Federal grants and matching funds already
    in effect.
        Question. Is it fair to change these amounts unilaterally? How was
    the amount of the reduction determined?
        Answer. The amounts were already changed unilaterally in the 1996
    legislation. The decision to shift funding from the CNMI to Guam was
    made possible by the large balance of undisbursed CNMI Federal grant
    funds. The CNMI has to date expended none of the grants made available
    to it in fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 or fiscal
    year 1999. It has disbursed approximately $24 million of the $71.5
    million in Federal funds granted to it in fiscal year 1993-1995. The
    Administration believes grant funds can be used more effectively in
    Guam. CNMI can utilize unspent balances to maintain its large
    construction program.
        Question. Doesn't CNMI also face significant impacts as a result of
    the Compact?
        Answer. The Compact immigration impacts faced by the CNMI are
    significant, but not on the same scale as Guam.
        One of the rationales the agency gives for taking capital
    improvement money from CNMI is the difficulty CNMI has in meeting the
    matching requirements for use of these funds.
        Question. Has the recent appropriation by the CNMI of $23 million
    for capital improvement projects changed the agency's position? Will
    the recent completion of the Capital Improvement Plan by CNMI help the
    CNMI government with meeting matching requirements and getting projects
    done?
        Answer. The lack of matching funds is an issue of recent vintage.
    The CNMI has matching funds in the bank for the Federal grants made to
    it in fiscal year 1993-95. It has nevertheless only expended $24
    million of the $71.5 million of the Federal funds.
        The barrier to using fiscal year 1996-1999 Covenant grants was the
    CNMI's failure to develop the Capital Improvement Plan. The plan is
    required by the Third Agreement and Public Law 104-134. Governor Pedro
    Tenorio's administration was the first to seriously address the
    planning requirement. With some technical assistance provided by the
    Department, the CNMI created a task force and completed a very good
    plan in December 1998. This allows the CNMI, after appropriation of the
    local matching funds, to begin work on projects.
        The completion of the plan has no effect upon the Department's view
    of local matching funds. The Department administers the matching
    requirement using grant management procedures. When funds are needed to
    pay for a project's accrued expenses, the Department pays half the
    total amount expended, as reported by the CNMI. This is a self-policing
    process. If the locally appropriated funds are not available in the
    bank, the CNMI cannot pay its contractor and the project stops. We have
    confidence in the financial managers of the CNMI that they would not
    initiate a project for which they could not pay. The real issue
    concerning local appropriations is the viability of the local revenues
    that support them. The CNMI's economic situation is difficult, and it
    remains to be seen if all of the projected revenues will be collected.
                            prior service trust fund
        The Subcommittee is concerned about the financial condition of the
    Prior Service Trust Fund. The Subcommittee has been told that within
    the next few years the fund will not have adequate resources to pay all
    beneficiaries.
        Question. What is the agency's position concerning this issue?
        Answer. The prior service benefits program was not included in the
    negotiated Compact agreements implemented in 1986. Congress decided to
    continue this program and added $8 million to the 1986 appropriation
    for that purpose. Although the $8 million was less than had been
    requested, the legislative history spoke of a cut-off date for new
    registrants and the actuary for the program stated that $8 million
    would be sufficient based on assumptions at the time. Management and
    total control of the program was turned over to an independent body
    working on behalf of the four involved insular governments. Management
    chose to continue signing up beneficiaries, incurring high programmatic
    and administrative costs in so doing. When the Department of the
    Interior was informed of the cost overruns, the additional cost had
    risen to $15 million against a program initially funded at $8 million.
    The Department has considered funding for the program in the last three
    budgets, but the program has not been of sufficient priority to be
    included in the final request to Congress.
        Question. How much money would it take to fix this problem?
        Answer. If appropriated for fiscal year 2000 in a single lump sum,
    it would require approximately $20 million. If appropriated in annual
    amounts only, the funding required for fiscal year 2000 is $1.2
    million. That amount would have to be appropriated at a gradually
    decreasing rate over the next 45-50 years.
        Question. Does the agency plan to request funds in the future to
    address this issue?
        Answer. There are no specific plans to request funds, but the issue
    could be reconsidered in future budget deliberations.
                                hawaiian impacts
        The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget indicates that the Compacts
    have had large impacts on Hawaii. No funding for Hawaii is provided in
    the agency's budget.
        Question. Does OIA have the authority to provide funds to states
    like Hawaii for impact assistance? If not, what statutory or other
    changes would need to be made?
        Answer. The Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 clearly
    contains authority for appropriations to the State of Hawaii for impact
    assistance.
        Question. What is the estimated impact on Hawaii of the Compacts?
    What is it expected to be over next five years? How does the Department
    plan to deal with the impacts of Compacts in future Compact
    negotiations?
        Answer. As reported in OIA's impact report of March 1999, Governor
    Cayetano stated that the primary impact in Hawaii was in education,
    health, and welfare. Estimated costs for programs of the State of
    Hawaii in these areas to serve Micronesian migrants was about $10
    million in the last year (1997-98 school year). With the Micronesian
    migrant population rising, that cost is expected to increase over the
    next five years. A new census of Micronesians in Hawaii to be conducted
    by the Office of Insular Affairs and the Census Bureau in 1999 will
    better determine the rate of growth.
        The Department plans to deal with impact through increased emphasis
    on education, training, and health care in the freely associated states
    in future Compact negotiations. This will help to reduce the rate of
    migration and increase the contribution that future migrants can make
    to the receiving areas.
                                      gpra
        Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
    agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
        Answer. Adjustments were made in OIA's organizational structure so
    that it aligns with our strategic goals. This makes it easier to tie
    organizational performance goals to individual performanc e standards.
        Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
    managers being held accountable for achieving results?
        Answer. The strategic goals and performance goals are directly
    linked to organizational structure and managerial responsibilities so
    that accountability for achieving organizational performance goals is
    now linked to individual performance standards and appraisals.
        Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
    the agency?
        Answer. We do not yet have adequate performance information to
    relate performance data to man agement decisions, other than
    anecdotally.
        Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
    the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
    examples.
        Answer. There are very few activities in OIA that receive
    discretionary funding, therefore program performance measures were not
    a significant factor in budget decisions.
        Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
    improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
    strategic and annual plans?
        Answer. The operations and maintenance improvement program
    (Maintenance Assistance funding) has been redesigned to emphasize past
    performance in the awarding of future grants. The timeliness by which
    insular governments develop work plans and begin and complete project
    implementation has become a criteria in awarding additional grant
    money. Similar methods are being considered for other technical
    assistance activities. We are currently examining the American Samoa
    operations grant to develop specific performance standards that will
    meet conditions of the grant.
        Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
    amounts to performance goals?
        Answer. The budget line items fit cleanly into our performance
    goals. Only our administrative funds are prorated among multiple goals.
    This makes for a very clear linkage between the budget and the annual
    performance plan.
        Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
    structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
    linkage?
        Answer. No changes are needed.
        Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
    performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. Yes. Much of the data OIA relies upon comes from the
    insular governments and neither the data needs nor a method for data
    collection have been fully defined. It is a significant challenge to
    develop meaningful performance measures that can be collected and
    interpreted uniformly among seven insular governments with
    significantly differing data collection and reporting capabilities.
        Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
    reliability of these measures?
        Answer. The agency is focusing some of its technical assistance
    resources on improving insular data collection, analysis, and
    reporting. OIA hopes to make a concerted effort in fiscal year 2000 to
    reach agreement with the insular governments on necessary performance
    measures so that uniform baseline and performance data can be
    collected.
        Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
    consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
    performance?
        Answer. In our technical assistance activities, it is unlikely that
    future funding requests will be tied directly to performance measures.
    This is because our technical assistance is provided on a discretionary
    basis to seven different insular governments. Therefore, performance is
    more likely to be a consideration in the allocation of discretionary
    funding among the governments rather that the total needs reflected in
    the budget. We are striving to develop some direct linkages between the
    American Samoa operations budget and their performance in achieving
    mutually agreed performance standards.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                 fish and wildlife service--wolf questionnaire
        Secretary Babbitt, last December I sent you a letter regarding a
    Fish and Wildlife Service questionnaire that was sent to hunters who
    received valid Elk permits from the New Mexico Department of Game and
    Fish. I asked that you personally review the survey because I was sure
    you would agree that it was accusatory, threatening, and totally
    inappropriate for a United States agency to send to its citizens.
        The questionnaire was supposedly trying to elicit information
    regarding recent shootings of reintroduced wolves in New Mexico. Among
    the dreadful tone of the questionnaire, I found it disturbing that the
    FWS chose to target hunters who were not otherwise under suspicion
    except for the fact that they were legally hunting in an area where
    reintroduced wolves have been found shot. I recognize that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service has an obligation to investigate the recent shooting
    of reintroduced wolves. I have no sympathy for those, if any, who are
    taking out their frustration with wolf introduction by killing these
    animals. Such individuals should be dealt with to the full extent of
    the law. However, I feel this document produced by your Department is
    outrageous and deplorable in its own right.
        I will submit this questionnaire for the record. However, I will
    briefly give a few examples of how the document arguably violates
    numerous fundamental Constitutional rights. The cover letter, from a
    Fish and Wildlife Special Agent, implicitly threatens that failure to
    return said survey would invite a Special Agent's personal meeting with
    the recipient. A sample of the questions, after the recipient is told
    to write in pen and make no corrections, includes inquiries into ``Did
    you shoot the wolf'' to asking why the FWS should believe the
    recipients' answers, to a direct entrapment question asking how much
    would you pay for a wolf--a taking of an endangered species.
        I did hear from Assistant Secretary Barry and Fish and Wildlife
    Director Clark that the questionnaire, while shocking, was not unusual
    in certain circumstances to elicit information from suspects in a
    criminal investigation, but it ``might not be proper'' for mass
    distribution. The FWS issued a statement that, despite appearances,
    answers were voluntary and the FWS would appreciate any information
    hunters in the area had that would aid the investigation. I would point
    out that perhaps is the tack the FWS should have taken to begin with,
    especially considering the volatility of the issue of wolf
    reintroduction.
        Question. I asked that you investigate the decision-making chain of
    command responsible for this questionnaire. and consider removing the
    responsible parties from their current positions. What investigative
    actions have you taken regarding this situation, and what actions
    subsequent to the investigation have you taken?
        Answer. The Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget
    requested that the Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety, Law
    Enforcement and Security Team (LEST) conduct research to determine the
    legitimacy of the SCAN/VIEW technique and whether other agencies were
    using this investigative tool. The LEST determined that ``Statement
    Content Analysis'' is taught and used by numerous Federal and State
    agencies. These include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United
    States Secret Service, and the other 71 agencies which receive staff
    training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
        The questionnaire mailed to New Mexico hunters was used according
    to the guidelines presented to Federal law enforcement officers during
    their training on the SCAN/VIEW technique. The Special Agent received
    approval from his immediate supervisor and concurrence from the Deputy
    Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement prior to mailing the
    questionnaire.
        Both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department are concerned
    about the questions that have been raised by the use of this technique.
    Therefore, the use of mailed questionnaires has been suspended within
    the Department pending further review.
        Question. Has the Department of Interior defined its policies so as
    to ensure such an inflammatory document will no longer be ``mass
    mailed'' to general ``suspects'' in Department in vestigations?
        Answer. The use of the SCAN/VIEW technique by mail has been
    suspended until such time as the Law Enforcement and Security Team is
    able to conduct further research and make recommendations. The LEST has
    not undertaken further review of the use of mailed questionnaires as of
    the date of this response.
                     fish and wildlife fws--silvery minnow
        Secretary Babbitt, New Mexico, like Arizona, is an arid state. I
    note that folks within the Beltway are primarily unaware of the
    critical need for water in the West. With lack of snowpack and
    precipitation, New Mexico is facing a severe drought this summer. In
    fact, parts of the Rio Grande river, which historically has gone dry at
    times, may dry up as early as this week. The traditional stresses of
    water users are only compacted by litigation regarding the needs of the
    endangered silvery minnow.
        I am deeply concerned about the impacts of laws such as the
    Endangered Species Act, no matter how well-intentioned, on a desert
    state like New Mexico. A recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordering
    of immediate critical habitat designation for the Rio Grande silvery
    minnow only dramatizes the growing conflict between the federal
    Endangered Species Act and water for Rio Grande users. I can only hope
    that the potential needs of this silvery minnow will not deplete
    reservoir holdings on which Albuquerque and Santa Fe depend for
    drinking water.
        A recent Notice of Intent to sue by the Forest Guardians and others
    threatens to force the release of stored water in any of the Heron, El
    Vado, Abiquiu, or Cochiti reservoirs to ``maintain the riparian habitat
    necessary for the survival'' of the silvery minnow and the willow
    flycatcher. I am concerned about water necessary for the survival of
    New Mexicans, their well-being and way of life.
        In the lawsuit forcing immediate critical habitat designation, you
    argued that the Department did not have the data necessary to determine
    water amounts needed for the fish. Fish and Wildlife Service Director
    Jamie Rappaport Clark stated in an affidavit to the Court that the FWS
    must comply with NEPA requirements and perform an economic analysis of
    the impacts of designation. An EIS would likely be needed, which would
    require more time for habitat designation. The ESA requires that the
    FWS, when designating critical habitat, take into consideration the
    economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
        Question. Without scientific data available for the silvery
    minnow's water needs nor a reliable economic analysis available, won't
    the Department need additional time to follow the NEPA process?
        Answer. The FWS believes that the needed scientific data is
    available to allow an estimation of the Rio Grande silvery minnow's
    water needs. The Recovery Plan for this species has been drafted and is
    under internal review. Included in the plan are descriptions of the
    conditions needed in the Rio Grande River watershed throughout the year
    for the survival and recovery of the species. This plan will soon be
    available in draft form to the public for review and comment. At this
    time, the FWS believes that the primary constituent elements of habitat
    required to sustain the Rio Grande silvery minnow include:
      --stream morphology that supplies sufficient flowing water to provide
            food and cover needed to sustain all life stages of the
            species;
      --water of sufficient quality to prevent water stagnation (elevated
            temperatures, decreased oxygen, carbon dioxide build-up, etc.);
            and
      --water of sufficient quantity to prevent formation of isolated pools
            that restrict fish movement, foster increased predation by
            birds and aquatic predators, and congregate disease causing
            pathogens.
        In February 1999, the U. S. District Court of New Mexico ordered
    the FWS to designate critical habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow
    within 30 days. The FWS responded to the Court with a request for
    reconsideration of the specified time frame. In that request, we
    explained to the court that critical habitat designation was not
    possible within 30 days, and that completing the required analyses and
    complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including
    opportunity for meaningful public involvement, would require a minimum
    of 8 months, and that if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were
    required, an additional 12-18 months would be necessary. Critical
    habitat designation, while providing little or no additional benefit to
    most listed species, is a time and resource intensive process,
    particularly within the Tenth Circuit, where the court has ruled that
    critical habitat designations require compliance with NEPA.
        The Court responded to our request for reconsideration with an
    order that extended the deadline for completing the designation to 120
    days (June 23, 1999). The FWS is working to meet the court-ordered
    deadline and will complete the designation to the best of our ability
    within the time allotted by the court. The FWS believes that for highly
    imperiled species, which are restricted to very specific, localized
    habitats, such as the Rio Grande silvery minnow, no additional
    protection is gained by designating critical habitat. Protection is
    already afforded to the species by virtue of being listed as an
    endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
    amended.
        Question. Isn't a full EIS a likely outcome for designation along
    the Rio Grande?
        Answer. For most species, no additional protection is gained by
    designating critical habitat; the needed protection is already afforded
    to the species by being listed under the Endangered Species Act.
    Therefore, the FWS believes that it is unlikely that we will determine
    that designation of critical habitat will have a significant
    environmental impact (a determination which would necessitate an EIS).
    However, the draft environmental assessment (EA) and economic analysis
    were released on April 7, 1999, and are currently being reviewed by the
    public. The comment period closed on May 7, 1999. If comments and
    information received during that period cause us to determine that an
    EIS is necessary, the FWS will work with the Department of Justice to
    determine how that factor affects the current Court order.
        Question. Are the Interior Department' s agencies working together
    in this process, since Bureau of Reclamation's operations are
    implicated in the litigation?
        Answer. Yes, the FWS has been working closely with the Bureau of
    Reclamation, to ensure that the Bureau is in compliance with the
    Endangered Species Act, and that the Rio Grande silvery minnow and its
    habitat are protected. The FWS and the Bureau have been working
    cooperatively for the last few years to conserve the silvery minnow and
    take necessary actions to restore important habitats for listed species
    along the Rio Grande. Both agencies have been engaged in the section 7
    consultation process under the Act. Through that process, we have been
    able to develop reasonable approaches to implement proposed projects
    while minimizing project impacts to listed species.
        Question. Isn't it true that the little scientific data available
    indicates that the minnow needs more water than the River can provide,
    even without consideration of the needs of human users?
        Answer. No, the FWS does not have any data to indicate that the
    minnow requires more water than the Rio Grande can provide. The major
    threat to the Rio Grande silvery minnow is the loss of habitat. This
    loss of suitable habitat has been caused by changes in hydrology
    throughout its historical range.
        This species was historically one of the most abundant and
    widespread fishes in the Rio Grande basin, occurring from Espanola, New
    Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico. It was also found in the Pecos River, a
    major tributary of the Rio Grande, from Santa Rosa, New Mexico,
    downstream to its confluence with the Rio Grande. It is now completely
    extirpated from the Pecos River and from the Rio Grande downstream of
    Elephant Butte Reservoir. Throughout much of its historical range,
    decline of the silvery minnow may be attributed to modification of
    stream discharge patterns and channel dewatering by impoundments, water
    diversion for agriculture, and streamchannelization.
        Decline of the species in the Middle Rio Grande probably began in
    the early part of this century with the construction of Elephant Butte
    Dam; eventually there were five major main stream dams constructed
    within the minnow's habitat. These dams allowed manipulation and
    diversion of the flow of the river. Often this manipulation resulted in
    the drying of river reaches and elimination of fish.
        Prior to extensive habitat alteration and the resulting flow
    modification, it is likely that portions of the river naturally dried
    periodically during drought conditions. However, the overall flow
    throughout the range of the species was sufficient to provide for the
    needs of the species at that time. Present day water management can be
    altered to provide sufficient water and thus sufficient habitat for
    this species.
        Question. How can critical habitat be designated without
    consideration of all water user needs along the river?
        Answer. The designation of critical habitat requires public
    participation and an examination of the economic impacts attributable
    to the designation. The public comment period for the proposed
    designation of critical habitat, the draft EA, and the draft economic
    analysis closed on May 7, and the FWS is reviewing the comments.
        One of the purposes of the comment period is to ensure that the FWS
    has not overlooked any considerations involving water user needs along
    the river. If the FWS finds that a particular need has been overlooked,
    this omission will be corrected when the FWS makes a final
    determination regarding the court-ordered designation of critical
    habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow.
        It is also important to recognize that the FWS believes that
    designation of critical habitat will have little or no impact above and
    beyond the effects that accrued from listing the species as endangered.
    This is because the prohibitions associated with critical habitat are
    duplicative with those associated with the listing. Section 7(a)(2) of
    the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
    authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
    continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or adversely
    modify its critical habitat.
        Implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402) define ``jeopardize the
    continued existence of'' a species and ``destruction or adverse
    modification of'' critical habitat in virtually identical terms. Thus,
    for most species, actions satisfying the standard for adverse
    modification are nearly always found to jeopardize the species
    concerned, and in most cases the existence of a critical habitat
    designation does not materially affect the outcome of consultation.
        This is often in contrast to the public perception that the adverse
    modification standard sets a lower threshold for violation of section 7
    than the jeopardy standard. In fact, biological opinions that conclude
    that a Federal agency action is likely to adversely modify critical
    habitat but not to jeopardize the species for which it is designated
    are extremely rare historically and have not been issued in recent
    years. The Rio Grande silvery minnow is a highly imperiled species and
    the FWS believes that the measures needed to ensure the survival and
    recovery of this species will be the same, with or without the
    designation of critical habitat.
        Because of the duplicative nature of the adverse modification and
    jeopardy standards, critical habitat designation provides little or no
    value to the species in question, and comes at the expense of higher
    priority conservation efforts. However, the FWS is being inundated with
    citizen lawsuits for our failure to complete the process, and we have
    been challenged on numerous ``not prudent'' critical habitat
    determinations (meaning that the designation of critical habitat was
    determined to be not prudent for that species).
        The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
    we are utilizing much of our very limited listing program resources in
    litigation support defending active lawsuits and Notices of Intent
    (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and complying with the
    growing number of adverse court orders. In the meantime, our efforts to
    respond to listing petitions, to propose listing of critically
    imperiled species, and to make final listing determinations on existing
    proposals are being significantly delayed. There are species not yet
    listed in Regions or geographic locations where litigation support has
    and will continue to consume much of our funding resources.
        For example, in Hawaii a single court order remanded 245 ``not
    prudent'' critical habitat determinations. There are other species in
    Hawaii that are not yet listed and are literally facing extinction
    while precious resources are being depleted on critical habitat
    litigation support and the reexaminations of critical habitat prudency
    determinations for species already listed. Litigation over critical
    habitat issues for species already listed and receiving the Act's full
    protection has precluded or delayed many listing actions nationwide.
                     surplus land disposal/inholder relief
        Mr. Secretary, a very large portion of the President's proposed
    budget includes funding for a ``Lands Legacy Initiative,'' which
    predominantly considers land acquisition throughout the Natural
    Resources agencies. I worked diligently with the Administration last
    year for legislation on federal acquisition and management of a unique
    piece of property in New Mexico, and I appreciate the value of public
    ownership of special property. Over 30 percent of New Mexico is in
    federal ownership. However, I have always advocated federal maintenance
    of the property the government already owns, and providing relief to
    those who have waited years for federal purchase of their property.
        Question. What percentage of the funding for land acquisition in
    your proposed budget would go towards the purchase of existing
    inholdings from willing sellers?
        Answer. It is hoped that $249.4 million of BLM, FWS, and NPS
    proposed federal LWCF acquisitions, after negotiations with landowners,
    will go toward the purchase of existing inholdings at the appraised
    value from willing sellers, including the management funding needed to
    effect those acquisitions. None of the funds included in the fiscal
    year 2000 budget request are presently designated for the acquisition
    of land from non-willing sellers. Excluded from the DOI total request
    of $295.0 million is the $45.6 million grant to the State of Florida
    for the Everglades.
        However, it is important to note that the term inholdings for NPS
    technically refers only to pre-FY 1960 tracts within unit boundaries.
    Requested funds for these NPS inholdings/exchanges total $4.0 million
    in fiscal year 2000. The balance of the NPS funds is $122.9 million
    that will be used for acquisition of tracts within recently authorized
    (post-FY 1960) boundaries within NPS units.
        One hundred percent of the acquisitions proposed in the 2000 BLM
    budget request are within BLM managed or Congressionally designated
    special areas.
        Question. Do you have an inventory of inholdings available and
    awaiting purchase by the Department?
        Answer. The inventory of inholdings available and awaiting purchase
    for BLM, FWS, and NPS follow:
        The most recent November 1998 land acquisition list compiled for
    the Bureau of Land Management indicates that 825,720 acres within 71
    project areas, located in ten States are identified for acquisition.
    The estimated cost in 1998 dollars to acquire these properties is
    $664,365,000. Identified land and interest in land may be acquired by
    purchase, exchange, and/or donation.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service has 2,662,000 acres remaining to be
    acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund monies at 148 refuges.
    The total cost is estimated to be $3.157 billion.
        The post-fiscal year 1999 acquisition requirements of the National
    Park Service as of March 9, 1999 are composed of $256,829,000 for 2,281
    tracts with 29,013 acres for inholdings and another 7,903 tracts with
    1,039,945 acres for $1,097,280,350 for recently authorized areas (after
    fiscal year 1960) within NPS unit boundaries. These total 10,184
    tracts, 1,068,958 acres, and $1,354,109,350.
        These NPS numbers reflect a change to the February 17, 1999 list
    submitted to the Committee because of re-evaluation of acquisition
    needs at two projects that resulted in a net increase of $1,239,000.
    The Lake Mead updating of estimates resulted in an increase in costs of
    $1,439,000. Great Basin was removed from the list due to mining claims
    that were invalidated and no longer in need of being acquired and
    resulted in a reduction of $200,000.
        I also worked very hard with the Administration last year on
    legislation which would facilitate disposal of surplus federal property
    and provide relief for inholders. My legislation would allow the
    proceeds from sales of disposal property by DOI and the Forest Service
    to be used for purchase of inholder properties from willing sellers who
    have been waiting to sell to the Federal government. You would be able
    to purchase these properties without coming to Congress each time.
        Question. Do you support this proposed legislation?
        Answer. The Administration supports the concept of the proposed
    legislation. The Department will continue to work with your staff to
    develop a mutually beneficial piece of legislation that will make the
    sale and acquisition of Federal lands easier. The Administration, as
    part of the Budget, is developing similar legislation that would allow
    receipts from land sales to be used to acquire lands adjacent to or
    surrounded by land now managed by the Department of the Interior.
                              southwestern drought
        Secretary Babbitt, when the Forest Service appeared before the
    Subcommittee last week, I had a discussion with Chief Dombeck about the
    Forest Service being behind in its forest management activities
    nationwide, such as prescribed burns that could help mitigate fire
    danger in our natural forests. In the Southwest, we are looking down
    the barrel of what could be one of the worst drought years ever. I know
    the Department of Interior agencies have to be concerned about the
    drought potential as well.
        Chief Dombeck indicated that the Forest Service has been working
    with a drought commission set up by the State of New Mexico. He also
    committed to working with this commission and with other federal
    agencies on a comprehensive strategy to address the upcoming drought.
    This line of questioning goes to the activities Department of the
    Interior agencies can undertake regarding drought and fire danger in
    the Southwest.
        Question. Please tell me what specific measures are being taken, or
    can be taken, to mitigate fire danger in New Mexico this fire season?
        Answer. The Interior fire management bureaus, in cooperation with
    their interagency partners, have provided severity funding to augment
    initial attack capability. These resources include pre-positioning of
    additional fire crews, staffing engine modules seven days a week, and
    early activation of firefighting resources. To date, the Interior
    bureaus have approved $943,000 for severity activities in New Mexico.
    Plans have been made to activate fire prevention teams to increase
    public awareness of the severe conditions and provide public education
    on measures to reduce unwanted fires. Past examples of such actions
    include having UPS distribute flyers when making deliveries in remote
    areas, public announcements, and internet postings.
        In New Mexico, the Department of the Interior has focused much of
    the hazardous fuel reduction projects on local community protection.
    For example, intensive projects have been conducted on Horse Mountain
    in Catron County, and outside the communities of Pinos Altos and
    Timberon as well as in Organ Mountains to protectadjacent subdivisions.
        Question. Explain what assistance you will need from Congress,
    especially in appropriations, to address fire danger and other drought-
    related disasters this year.
        Answer. In the 1997 appropriation, Congress provided $100 million
    in emergency funding to cover unusually high suppression and emergency
    preparedness costs in severe wildfire years. In 1999, about $94 million
    of this funding remains available; $50 million of it contingent on a
    future declaration of emergency by the President. Drought conditions
    throughout many areas in the U.S make it increasingly likely that at
    least some of this contingency funding will need to be used during this
    year's fire season. At the present time, it appears that this funding,
    combined with regular 1999 Wildland Fire Operations appropriation, will
    be adequate to cover these additional emergency needs. We will monitor
    this situation on a regular basis throughout the year and request
    additional funding as necessary.
        Question. Is the Department involved in fire assessment work in
    conjunction with other agencies--particularly USDA's Natural Resources
    Conservation Service and FEMA?
        Answer. The Department is working closely with the U.S. Forest
    Service and the States to assess the current fire situation. The land
    management agencies are working together in the Southwest Fire
    Management Board (Geographic Area Coordination Center), and the
    Southwest Strategy Drought Task Force. The agencies coordinate with the
    National Resources Conservation Service via the Southwest Strategy
    Group and with FEMA through New Mexico State Forestry, a member of the
    Southwest Fire Management Board.
        Question. What can the Department specifically contribute to the
    comprehensive strategy the Forest Service is putting together to
    prepare for the drought?
        Answer. We are a full cooperating participant with the Forest
    Service in drought strategy planning. Severity planning and actions
    outlined above are routinely implemented on an interagency basis.
                                litigation costs
        Question. There has been a question on my mind for quite some time
    as I look at the work of the public lands agencies of the Department of
    Interior and the U.S. Forest Service that have a significant presence
    in the West. That question is: How much money has been spent in New
    Mexico and Arizona on environmental lawsuits?
        Answer. We estimate that the Department of the Interior has spent
    about $3.6 million over the last few years in defending environmental
    lawsuits arising in New Mexico and Arizona under the Endangered Species
    Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. It should be noted that
    a number of these cases were brought, not by environmental
    organizations, but by state and local governments, irrigation
    districts, and interest groups such as the cattle growers associations
    in the two states. Based on the information provided by each bureau and
    office, a breakdown of these costs from fiscal year 1997, 1998, and the
    first half of 1999 is as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal years--
              Bureau/office           --------------------------------------
                                           1997         1998         1999
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Office of the Solicitor..........    $291,8000     $256,800     $107,300
    Bureau of Reclamation............       72,000       20,000       12,000
    Bureau of Land Management........       65,000      120,000       87,000
    Fish and Wildlife Service........    1,040,000    1,040,000      520,000
                                      --------------------------------------
          Totals.....................    1,468,800    1,436,800      726,300
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An additional $226,700 has been spent defending lawsuits under the
    Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. These lawsuits involve matters
    growing out of the regulation of oil and gas development in relation to
    other resources, such as other mineral resources and cave resources. A
    breakdown of these costs from fiscal years 1997, 1998, and the first
    half of 1999 is as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal years--
              Bureau/office           --------------------------------------
                                           1997         1998         1999
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Office of the Solicitor..........       $3,500       $4,200       $6,900
    Bureau of Land Management........       35,900      113,500       62,700
                                      --------------------------------------
          Totals.....................       39,400      117,700       69,600
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. In these lawsuits, how much has been awarded to the
    plaintiffs?
        Answer. Except in the lawsuits under the Takings Clause of the
    Fifth Amendment, these cases involve requests for declaratory and
    injunctive relief. The amounts awarded are therefore limited to court
    costs and attorney fees. A total of $590,300 was awarded during this
    period (FY 1997-99). No takings cases pending during this period have
    yet gone to judgment, so no determinations as to liability or damages
    have been made.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Secretary Babbitt, I have been impressed with the cooperation from
    your office in addressing the problem of deteriorating BIA elementary
    and secondary schools. Last year this Subcommittee asked for a report
    on the extent of the problem and a five year plan to address the
    problem. When Assistant Secretary Gover testified before this
    Committee, he told us that this report would be reviewed soon by the
    BIA Central Office and OMB.
        Question. What is the status of this review of the planning effort?
    Do you have an estimate of when this Subcommittee will have this
    information?
        Answer. In Senate Report 105-277, the Bureau was directed to
    develop an alternative administrative plan to complete the repair,
    renovation, and reconstruction (including new construction) of all
    education facilities in five years on an annual basis. The effort to
    estimate the cost of replacing or repairing/renovating the schools in
    the Bureau school system has been completed. The Department plans on
    submitting the five-year alternative administrative plan to the
    Committees before the end of May, 1999.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
                            lands legacy initiative
        One big area of concern for me is the Administration's $1 billion
    land grab, more commonly called the Administration's Lands Legacy
    Initiative.
        Question. Why are you proposing to acquire more public lands when
    you are not spending enough to maintain existing public lands?
        Answer. The Department believes that among its responsibilities, it
    needs both to continue to address the deferred maintenance needs and to
    acquire important lands that are increasingly subject to both
    development and cost inflation. Through the 5-year plans, DOI is
    addressing the highest priority critical health and safety projects and
    critical resource protection projects. Through the Lands Legacy
    Initiative and its proposed full funding of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, the public will be able to enjoy lands for
    recreation, historical and cultural education purposes through use of
    the receipts from the sale of oil and gas on Federal lands.
        Question. How much of this $1 billion initiative is related to in-
    holdings versus new purchases of land?
        Answer. Responses for each of the three DOI land-managing bureaus
    follow:
        The Bureau of Land Management's proposed acquisitions under the
    President's Lands Legacy Initiative include the acquisition of 357,000
    acres of Catellus Corporation ``checkerboard'' inholdings within the
    California Desert at a cost of $28.9 million (these acquisitions
    include critical desert tortoise habitat and inholdings within
    Congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas). Inholding acquisition
    within the Congressionally-designated Upper Missouri National Wild and
    Scenic River corridor, an area of national significance (including the
    nearly pristine route of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail),
    at a cost of $5 million, is also proposed. All ten of BLM proposed
    acquisitions, totaling a request of $43.9 million, are within BLM
    approved or Congressionally designated special areas and face imminent
    conversion from agricultural use to rural residential subdivision.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service defines an inholding as any lands not
    in Federal ownership within an approved project. All of the $73.6
    million in lands proposed for acquisition are considered to be
    inholdings.
        Except for $45.6 million to be granted to the State of Florida for
    acquisition related to the restoration of the Everglades, the portion
    of the Land Legacy Initiative designed for Federal land acquisition
    within the National Park System will be used to acquire only those
    high-priority, non-Federal lands which are located within the
    authorized boundaries of units of the System. It is important to note
    that the term inholdings for NPS technically refers only to pre-fiscal
    year 1960 tracts within unit boundaries. Requested funds for these NPS
    inholdings/exchanges total $4.0 million in fiscal year 2000. The
    balance of the NPS funds is $122.9 million that will be used for
    acquisition of tracts within recently authorized (post-fiscal year
    1960) boundaries within NPS units.
        Question. Since you stated that you can accomplish this Initiative
    under current laws, what specific statutory provisions authorize it?
        Answer. The President's Budget recognizes that several existing
    authorized programs in the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture,
    and Commerce serve conservation purposes similar in nature to those
    authorized to be funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    What is proposed for fiscal year 2000 is that this be done through the
    appropriations process. For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the
    President has indicated a desire to work with Congress on legislative
    authority that would provide a permanent source of funding to meet the
    Lands Legacy Initiative goals.
        Additionally, there will be regular coordination and information
    sharing among the Federal interagency team to ensure that the programs
    and funding are efficiently deployed.
                                  pilt funding
        Along the same lines about the Administration's lack of adequate
    funding for land in their trust, I understand the Administration once
    again is proposing to provide insufficient PILT funding to the states.
        Question. Why does the administration continue to avoid fulfilling
    this responsibility to our counties?
        Answer. The Department understands the phrase ``avoid fulfilling
    this responsibility to our counties'' to refer to the disparity between
    appropriated funding levels and those authorized by Congress in the
    1994 amendments to the PILT Act. In fact, the Administration has
    consistently submitted what it considers to be good faith budget
    requests for the PILT program within the constraints imposed by
    discretionary funding caps. That support is reflected in a funding
    increase of nearly 25 percent from implementation of the amended PILT
    Act in 1995 to the present budget request. That level of increase is
    greater than many of the programs for which the Department is
    responsible, among them remediation of hazardous waste sites,
    management of cultural and historic resources on the public lands, and
    various on-the-ground management improvements.
        The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for PILT is $125 million, the
    same as the amount agreed to by the House and Senate in passing the
    Department's 1999 appropriation. In addition to PILT, other program
    revenues are paid directly to States and counties for their use.
    Moreover, the Administration is proposing a program to stabilize at a
    predictable and high level payments to counties and States in which
    harvest of timber on Federal land takes place. This proposal will
    complement other cooperative arrangements involving State and local
    government that are included in the Lands Legacy initiative.
        Question. Why is the Department proposing to expand holdings of
    public lands while not providing sufficient payments to reimburse
    states and counties for the reduced amount of taxable lands upon which
    they depend for their economic base?
        Answer. The Lands Legacy initiative will allow the Department to
    help fulfill some of its underlying stewardship responsibilities in a
    manner that improves the quality of life for all people. This will be
    accomplished by protecting the Nation's open spaces for recreation and
    wildlife, and by preserving historic and cultural resources for future
    generations. As discussed above, the Department is limited in proposing
    large funding increases for PILT by limitations on discretionary
    spending that constrain the Department's entire request. However, in
    fiscal year 2000 the public lands will generate an estimated $1.4
    billion in receipts from various sources including the sale of land and
    materials, grazing fees, timber sales, recreation use fees, and mineral
    leasing operations. In part, these receipts supplement PILT payments as
    nearly one half of these receipts is shared with the states and
    counties. Additionally, the BLM's contributions to state and local
    economies goes well beyond PILT payments and revenue sharing,
    particularly when one considers the impacts of tourism on economic
    development and the benefits that communities derive from conservation
    efforts.
        Question. I presume you believe in making full payment to local
    communities for land withdrawn from their tax base by the Federal
    government. If so, what are you doing to ensure this is done?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior fully understands that PILT
    payments are an important source of income for many counties, as are
    other revenue sharing programs. However, an increase for PILT was not
    included in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the
    Department would not support additional funding for PILT at the expense
    of BLM operating funds or other Administration priorities. Increased
    funding for BLM operations supports programs that provide significant
    services, resources, and tangible benefits to the public. Federal
    payments to counties and States supplement those benefits in supporting
    the health of local economies.
                    maintenance and capital improvement plan
        I am glad to see that the Department of the Interior has developed
    a 5-year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan among its bureaus.
    This is an important step to restore deteriorating assets of our
    national lands.
        Question. What is the Department's value of its total long-term
    maintenance backlog?
        Answer. According to data collected in response to the fiscal year
    1998 Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Standard Number Six,
    DOI's estimated unmet deferred maintenance needs range from $7 billion
    to $16 billion. Better estimates will become available as the
    Department and bureaus begin the multi-year cycle of condition
    assessments proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
        Question. How much of this backlog will be addressed by your fiscal
    year 2000 request?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget for BLM includes a
    request for $12.7 million in the Management of Lands and Resources and
    $2.6 million in the Oregon and California Grant Lands accounts for
    deferred maintenance work. All of these funds are targeted to project
    work that will reduce deferred maintenance. In addition, approximately
    $2.2 million of the construction request and $4.2 million of BLM's
    portion of the fire facilities request would be directed to reducing
    the deferred maintenance needs. Bureau-wide $21.7 million in reduced
    deferred maintenance needs will be addressed.
        The USGS expects that the $1.5 million request for each year of
    fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004 will address $5.628 million or
    approximately eight percent of the USGS health and safety deferred
    maintenance needs.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently proposes to target
    $605 million of the most critical health, safety, and natural resource
    protection needs.
        The fiscal year 1999 FWS appropriations and special Title V funding
    will reduce the targeted critical maintenance needs by 15 percent. The
    President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes $64.5 million in
    maintenance, equipment replacement, and construction projects which
    will reduce the most critical needs by another 10.7 percent. The FWS
    Five-Year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan includes another
    $236.5 million to address critical current deferred maintenance and
    equipment replacement needs over the 2001-2004 fiscal years. Also,
    annual maintenance funding will help reduce the long-term problem by
    correcting smaller maintenance projects to keep them from growing
    larger.
        The NPS anticipates addressing approximately $112 million in
    deferred maintenance as a result of its fiscal year 2000 proposal, as
    contained in the 5-year Plan. During the life of the 5-year plan as
    currently proposed, a total estimated at $704 million would be devoted
    to deferred maintenance.
        With the requested BIA funding level for fiscal year 2000, the
    deferred maintenance will be reduced by $25.3 million for Facilities
    Construction and Repair and by $23.3 million for Resources Management
    construction.
        Question. What is your planned schedule to fully address this
    existing long-term maintenance backlog of existing public lands and
    facilities?
        Answer. Rather than developing a schedule to address the full
    existing long-term maintenance backlog, the Department and bureaus in
    fiscal year 2000 have determined that the best use of available funding
    is to first address the highest priority critical health and safety and
    critical resource protection projects in a 5-year plan that will be
    updated annually. These lists submitted to the Congress set out the
    priority work; and accomplishments will be reported on a project-by-
    project basis after the conclusion of the fiscal year.
                          grizzly bear reintroduction
        I am really concerned about the eagerness of your Department to
    consider listing species as ``threatened or ``endangered'' under the
    Endangered Species Act. For example, you proposed listing of the
    Mountain Plover and the Black-tailed Prairie Dog without sufficient
    scientific data on the populations of these species. Also you continue
    to list the grizzly bear even though there is convincing evidence that
    they can survive and prosper. Finally, I understand you have numerous
    additional species to consider for designation as ``threatened'' or
    endangered''.
        Question. What scientific basis do you have for continuing to
    introduce the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot-Selway area in light of
    data that shows the bear has a less than one in one million chance of
    going extinct without this introduction effort?
        Answer. The recently released report on the probability of
    extinction of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears actually identifies a wide
    range of extinction probabilities, based on different assumptions
    (Boyce 1999) Without establishment of a Bitterroot population, the
    estimates for probability of extinction ranged as high as 3 in 1,000.
    Establishment of a Bitterroot population reduces the probability of
    extinction by 88-99 percent in different cases. The report concludes
    that ``adding additional areas . . . greatly improves the probability
    of existence and therefore the effectiveness of conservation for the
    grizzly bear.'' The projection of one in one million was based not on
    today's circumstances, rather it was based on future projections once
    all five grizzly bear ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains are recovered.
        Question. What does it take to demonstrate that grizzly bears are
    not endangered and should be delisted?
        Answer. Population numbers in all of the ecosystems, with the
    exception of the Yellowstone ecosystem, need to improve considerably
    before the goals established in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan can be
    attained. Once recovery goals are reached in each ecosystem, a status
    review of each population and a re-analysis of the five listing factors
    will be necessary steps leading to delisting. At this time, only the
    Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly population is under study for potential
    delisting.
        Question. How do you involve the states in your review of proposed
    designations?
        Answer. It is our policy to coordinate all Endangered Species Act
    activities closely with state fish and wildlife agencies, because they
    possess important expertise and broad trustee and jurisdictional powers
    on fish, wildlife, and plant species. We published a Notice of
    Interagency Cooperative Policy Regarding the Role of State Agencies in
    Endangered Species Act Activities in the Federal Register (Vol. 59, No.
    126, page 34274), that explains our procedures.
        Question. How many other candidate species is the Department
    working on now for consideration as ``threatened'' or ``endangered?''
        Answer. As of April 30, 1999, the FWS has a total of 154 species
    (72 animals and 82 plants) that are candidates for listing. A candidate
    is defined as a species for which we have on file substantial
    information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a
    proposal to list as threatened or endangered.
                           domestic energy industries
        I am concerned about your Department's view of limiting economic
    development of our domestic energy industries (such as oil, natural
    gas, and coal) given record low oil prices, record layoffs in these
    industries, and record shut-down of wells.
        Question. What is the Department doing, beyond granting lease
    extensions, to enhance production of our domestic energy industries?
        Answer. The Department has not granted any lease extensions for
    onshore wells, or any other wells for that matter. The Department, as
    well as many in the oil and gas industry, does not support granting
    lease extensions. The Department believes that a lease term of 10 years
    is ample time for a company to decide whether to drill or not.
        The Department has, however, recently given operators of stripper
    oil properties the option of suspending operations on those stripper
    properties for up to two years, as long as the price of West Texas
    Intermediate crude oil is below $15 bbl. If this option is exercised,
    then the operator pays no minimum royalty or rentals and the lease
    stays in force during that time period, thus preserving a very valuable
    domestic resource until better economic conditions exist.
        Question. What is your policy on access to public lands for energy
    exploration and/or development?
        Answer. As you know, the Department operates federal lands under a
    multiple-use mandate. This means that the Department policy must
    balance multiple and sometimes competing uses for federal land. Given
    this fact, the Department and the Administration have actively
    supported and advocated many measures that have contributed favorably
    to the economic competitiveness of the domestic oil and gas industry
    over the past six and one half years. These measures include support
    for the Royalty Fairness and Simplification Act, Deepwater Royalty
    Relief, repeal of the Alaska North Slope export ban, and heavy and
    stripper oil royalty rate reductions on Federal lands. Also, the
    Department of the Interior is working jointly with the Department of
    Energy (DOE) to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with 28
    million barrels of Federal royalty-in-kind oil from the Gulf of Mexico,
    which will enhance our nation's energy security.
        Question. Has the Department of the Interior given any thought to
    expanding the royalty relief program to all uneconomic oil wells which
    are beyond 15 barrels per day?
        Answer. The Department has been approached by industry concerning
    expanding its royalty rate relief threshold above 15 barrels per day.
    Today, on an individual basis, producers may request relief from the
    BLM if they can demonstrate that producing under current conditions is
    uneconomic. To grant royalty relief across-the-board for all uneconomic
    wells would require a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits
    of such an expansion of the program.
                             crown butte agreement
        I am concerned that the Administration is once again trying to
    avoid its commitment in the Crown Butte agreement to transfer $10
    million of Federal mineral rights to the State of Montana following the
    Crown Butte Settlement. This settlement recognizes the need to
    compensate the revenue lost by the State of Montana following the
    Administration's interference with a proposed mine location. Despite
    previous promises, the Administration does not want to honor their
    agreement with the State of Montana.
        Question. What actions is the Department of the Interior taking to
    honor this commitment?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior is complying with Section
    503(a) of the fiscal year 1998 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which
    requires the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate with the Governor
    of Montana on the conveyance of ``$10,000,000 in federal mineral
    rights.'' Only if such negotiations are not successful does the statute
    contemplate the possible conveyance of the Otter Creek tracts. The
    Secretary has met with Governor Racicot of Montana to discuss
    implementation of this section. Governor Racicot has expressed interest
    in the Otter Creek tracts but has not responded to the Secretary's
    efforts to discuss other options. The Secretary will continue to pursue
    negotiations with Governor Racicot until the statutory time frame for
    negotiations expires on January 1, 2001.
        Question. What action do you propose I take to satisfy my state's
    needs, short of specific mandates in your appropriations?
        Answer. Any assistance that the Montana delegation could offer in
    bringing the State of Montana to the table to negotiate the transfer of
    $10 million in federal mineral rights is appreciated.
        Question. What is objectionable about the Otter Creek site?
        Answer. The Administration objects to the transfer of publicly
    owned mineral assets in Montana to the State. Section 503 sets an
    unacceptable precedent by requiring compensation to a State for a
    transaction between the Federal Government and a willing seller. This
    is why the President included in his fiscal year 2000 budget request a
    proposal to repeal Section 503. Transferring the Otter Creek tracts
    could be particularly troublesome in opening an undisturbed area to
    mineral development with consequential environmental disruption and
    local controversy. Transferring other assets (including mineral
    resources in more developed areas) would result in fewer ecological
    impacts, while still providing the State with the ``federal mineral
    rights'' called for in the 1998 appropriation.
        Question. What is your preferred alternative site that you have
    proposed to the Governor and why is it preferred?
        Answer. The Secretary of the Interior is willing to consider
    conveying an income stream from producing federal oil and gas leases to
    the State of Montana. We have identified a number of properties that
    could produce an income stream to satisfy the terms of the statute.
        Question. What actions do you believe the state and the Department
    need to take now to finalize this deal?
        Answer. The deal cannot be finalized until the State indicates a
    willingness to reopen negotiations.
        Question. What happens if the state and the Department come to an
    impasse?
        Answer: Under terms of Section 503, the Secretary and the State of
    Montana must reach agreement on the mineral rights to be transferred by
    January 1, 2001. If no agreement has been reached by that date, and if
    Section 503 has not been repealed, the Department will fulfill the
    requirements of the law.
                           montana mineral withdrawal
        Recent mineral withdrawal of 430,000 acres of public lands in
    Montana has raised a lot of attention and you have told Montana's
    governor that coal extraction is no longer needed in eastern Montana.
        Question. Why is the Administration continuing to lock out
    prospective and economically viable activities on public lands?
        Answer. The area in question (430,000 acres) is entirely on lands
    administered by the U.S. Forest Service in Montana. BLM is responsible
    through the Federal Land Management and Policy Act for accepting and
    processing Forest Service withdrawal proposals and forwarding those
    proposals to the Secretary for approval of a Public Land Order.
    Generally, BLM defers to the managing agency (U.S. Forest Service) to
    respond to questions about its management activities.
        Question. What is the Administration's ultimate objective on
    hardrock mining and how do you propose to implement it?
        Answer. The Administration seeks to encourage the environmentally
    responsible development of mineral resources. The Administration also
    seeks to ensure the public receives a fair return for public land
    resources. The Administration recognizes the importance of mineral
    development to local communities, particularly in the West, as well as
    to the nation's economy. The Administration balances the need to make
    lands available for mineral development with its responsibility to
    ensure such development is conducted in an environmentally sound
    manner.
        Question. Finally, why was this action not pursued through the
    traditional forest planning process.
        Answer. The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for developing and
    implementing Forest Plans. As such, the Secretary of Agriculture and U.
    S. Forest Service would be the appropriate land management agency to
    discuss forest planning matters.
                        onshore oil and gas regulations
        Question. I understand that proposed revisions to BLM's Onshore Oil
    and Gas regulations and a proposed new rule on royalty appeals would
    institute new fees on the industry that the Department does not
    currently collect. Why do you believe now is an appropriate time to
    levy new fees on an ailing domestic industry? What impact do you
    believe will occur on the industry with these new fees?
        Answer. While most of the proposed onshore oil and gas regulations
    do not represent a change from current policy or procedures, the
    changes that are proposed generally lessen the administrative burden on
    industry. Two changes proposed by the BLM will add new fees. The new
    geophysical fair market value fee is designed to provide the public a
    fair return for the use of its resources. The optional idle well fee is
    designed to provide a low-cost alternative to a bond increase in order
    to prevent future liabilities from operators who do not comply with
    requirements. Economic analysis on the idle well fee does not indicate
    a significant cost burden on industry. The Department believes this fee
    balances the economic realities faced by operators with the Federal
    Government's obligation to protect public resources.
        The Minerals Management Service, which has responsibility for
    royalty appeals, has proposed a regulation that would charge fees for
    processing such appeals. The Department does not view the charging of a
    modest fee to process appeals as burdensome on industry. Charging a fee
    to process appeals supports the Department's general cost recovery
    policy, though the proposed $150 fee in no way covers all appeals'
    costs. In addition, the fee may help discourage frivolous appeals of a
    sound onshore royalty policy.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
        In July of 1995, the Department issued a proposed draft rule to
    remove the Peregrine Falcon from the Endangered Species list. In August
    of 1998, the Department issued a proposed final rule to remove the
    Peregrine Falcon from the Endangered Species list. With nearly 1,200
    species being added to the Endangered Species list, the Peregrine is
    one of only a few that have been recovered.
        Question. What is the status of the de-listing of the Peregrine
    Falcon?
        Answer. The comment period on the draft rule has closed and the
    field office is addressing comments and preparing the Final Rule
    package.
        Question. When will the de-listing be accomplished?
        Answer. The Final Rule is expected to be approved and published in
    the Federal Register in August 1999.
        Question. What is the status of the other species included in your
    May 1998 announcement which addresses a more aggressive de-listing
    strategy?
        Answer. The American peregrine falcon, Dismal Swamp southeastern
    shrew, and Lloyd's hedgehog cactus are all close to being delisted. The
    FWS anticipates completion of the final rule to delist these three
    species by the end of fiscal year 1999. The FWS also has several
    species that are in various stages of being proposed for delisting or
    reclassified to threatened. These include such species as the Douglas
    County population -Columbian white-tailed deer (delisting), Aleutian
    Canada goose (delisting), brown pelican (delisting), bald eagle
    (delisting), and gray wolf (delisting and reclassification).
        The following table includes the expected delisting actions for the
    next two years.

      POSSIBLE FWS DELISTING AND RECLASSIFICATION ACTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS
                                  1999-2000 \1\
                                  [May 5, 1999]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Action being     Lead       Reason for
               Species             considered \2\   region        action
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American peregrine falcon....  FD............        1   Recovery.
    Columbian white-tailed deer    PD............        1   Recovery.
     (Douglas Co. pop.).
    Hoover's wooly star..........  PD............        1   Recovery & New
                                                              Information.
    Tinian monarch (a bird) \3\..  PD............        1   Recovery.
    Tidewater goby...............  PD............        1   Recovery & New
                                                              Information.
    Chamaesyce skottsbergii var.   PR>T..........        1   Taxonomic
     kalaeloana.                                              Revision.
    Eureka Valley dune plants \2\  PR>T..........        1   Recovery.
    Santa Cruz cypress...........  PD............        1   Recovery.
    Truckee barberry.............  PD............        1   Taxonomic
                                                              Revision.
    Guam broadbill & Mariana       PD............        1   Presumed
     mallard.                                                 Extinct.
    Brown pelican (Gulf Coast      PD/FD.........        2   Recovery.
     pop.).
    San Marcos gambusia (a fish).  PD............        2   Presumed
                                                              Extinct.
    Johnston's frankenia.........  PD............        2   New
                                                              Information.
    Yuma clapper rail............  PD............        2   Recovery.
    Gray wolf....................  PR>T/PD.......        3   Recovery.
    Bald eagle...................  PD............        3   Recovery.
    Missouri bladder-pod.........  PR>T..........        3   Recovery & New
                                                              Information.
    Running buffalo clover.......  PR>T..........        3   Recovery & New
                                                              Information.
    Dwarf-flowered heartleaf.....  PD............        4   Recovery & New
                                                              Information.
    Large-flowered skullcap......  PR>T..........        4   Recovery & New
                                                              Information.
    Dismal Swamp southeastern      FD............        5   New
     shrew.                                                   Information.
    Robbin's cinquefoil..........  PR>T..........        5   Recovery.
    Heliotrope milk-vetch........  PD............        6   Recovery.
    Aleutian Canada goose........  PD............        7   Recovery.
    Spectacled eider (Arctic       PD............        7   New
     Russia pop.).                                            Information.
    Grizzly bear (Yellowstone      PD............        6   Recovery.
     ecosystem).
    Lloyd's hedgehog cactus......  FD............        2   New
                                                              Information.
    Arizona hedgehog cactus......  PD............        2   Taxonomic
                                                              Revision.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PD=Proposed Delisting Action
    FD=Final Delisting Action
    PR>T=Proposed Reclassification (Endangered to Threatened)
    \1\ This list is not intended to be comprehensive. Delisting or
      downlisting actions may be processed for species other than those
      appearing on this list.
    \2\ The action actually proposed or finalized may differ from that
      currently being considered.
    \3\ Although the FWS has received a petition requesting delisting of
      this species, the possible delisting or downlisting action is a FWS
      initiative rather than a result of the petition.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
                     harpers ferry national historical park
        The Harpers Ferry National Historical Park suffered severe damage
    in 1996 and 1997 from flooding and ice storms.
        Question. What damage remains to be repaired from these events?
        Answer. Harpers Ferry Historical Park has four remaining repair
    projects as a result of the flood and storm damage occurring from two
    major weather events in 1995-1996. In fiscal year 1999, Congress
    appropriated $400,000 to complete the repairs to three of the four
    remaining projects. These three projects are the roof and doors of the
    Stephenson, Anderson, and Wager buildings, the John Brown Fort, and the
    cotton mill on Virginius Island. The fourth, and last, storm project,
    is the repair and replacement of roofs on four buildings on Marmion
    Row.
        Question. How much will it cost to complete the repairs?
        Answer. The estimated cost to complete the repairs caused by the
    most recent storm is an additional $600,000. This will repair and
    replace the roofs on four buildings on Marmion Row. These four
    buildings are the Harper House (Bldg 1A), the Wager House (Bldg 1B),
    and two Mormion Tennant Houses (Bldgs 1C and 1D).
        The West Virginia Division of Highways has begun the replacement of
    the U.S. 340 bridge over Shenandoah River at Harpers Ferry.
        Question. What is the impact of this construction on the Park?
        Answer. A wider and longer bridge will replace the existing bridge,
    which is scheduled to be removed when the replacement bridge is
    completed. This bridge replacement project has been the subject of
    extensive environmental review, and all necessary measures to mitigate
    the effects of the bridge on the park have been taken. The National
    Park Service, West Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, and
    the Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation continue to monitor
    progress of the bridge construction to assure that the terms of
    mitigating the impact of the bridge upon the National Historical Park
    are fully implemented.
        Question. When will the bridge work be completed?
        Answer. The West Virginia Department of Highways is projecting a
    completion date of December, 2000.
        Question. Is the Park incurring any extra costs because of this
    construction?
        Answer. The park has been able to absorb all costs related to the
    new bridge within existing operating funds. The bridge contract is
    comprehensive and all funding necessary to establish new rights of way,
    to repair park roads, and to reforest park lands from construction
    activities is included in the bridge contract undertaken by the State
    of West Virginia. One issue that has surfaced, however, between the
    Town of Harpers Ferry, the West Virginia Department of Highways, and
    the NPS that was not included in the specifications of the bridge
    replacement contract, is the relocation of the Town's waterline and
    extension of the waterline to service the park. Discussion is underway,
    but a cost estimate has not been prepared. It cannot be determined at
    this time what, if any, cost to relocate the waterline might have to be
    funded by the NPS.
        In fiscal year 1999, $8 million was appropriated to the NPS for
    land acquisition matching grants to help preserve Civil War battlefield
    sites, of which $1 million was for Harper's Ferry.
        Question. What is the status of the effort?
        Answer. Currently, the Civil War Trust is taking the lead in trying
    to preserve the School House Ridge Battlefield at Harpers Ferry. The
    Civil War Trust has recently discussed purchase of 233 acres of the
    battlefield from the estate of Dixie Kilham. The estate holds one of
    the most significant Civil War properties on School House Ridge. An
    appraisal of this property has been ordered by the Trust and a
    negotiation with the Executrix of the estate continues. The Trust
    expects to make an offer when the appraisal is complete. This property
    is adjacent to the 56-acre parcel purchased by the Civil War Trust in
    1993 and donated to become part of Harpers Ferry National Historical
    Park in 1998. The Civil War Trust has been in contact with members of
    the West Virginia State Legislature, regarding West Virginia Civil War
    sites and creating a Civil War Discovery Trail linking sites within the
    State.
        Question. What group is providing the matching funds?
        Answer. In order to acquire the property, the Civil War Trust is
    seeking partners to raise the matching funds. As yet no specific
    nonprofit organization has been identified, but negotiations continue
    with various funds sources such as the Conservation Trust.
        Question. Does this effort have the support of the county and
    residents of Harpers Ferry?
        Answer. The Mayor of Harpers Ferry has gone on record stating town
    residents favor preservation of the battlefield and want to maintain
    the quality of life the community derives from the town's historic
    setting. Many Jefferson County Commissioners have stated publicly they
    favor protection of the battlefield. However, commissioners find
    themselves caught in a dilemma wanting national resources protected,
    yet fielding requests from local developers to build on the
    battlefield.
        Question. What group will be the most likely owner of these lands
    in the short-term and the long-term?
        Answer. The battlefield is currently a mixture of Federal
    Government and privately owned lands. If additional private lands are
    acquired, they will most likely be held by private nonprofit
    organizations or by private land developers.
        Question. What are the greatest threats to preserving and
    maintaining the rich history of the Harpers Ferry area?
        Answer. The greatest threat to preserving and maintaining the rich
    history of the Harpers Ferry area is the impact of development on
    nationally significant battlefield lands. School House Ridge is the
    State of West Virginia's most significant Civil War battlefield and an
    integral part of Harpers Ferry's history. Harpers Ferry is threatened
    by three factors. First, a lack of coordinated strategy to protect the
    battlefield. Secondly, a lack of greater nonprofit organization
    involvement in West Virginia's number-one battlefield issue. And the
    third factor is the proposed placement of yet another housing
    development on the battlefield.
        Without the protection of the School House Ridge battlefield from
    housing development and similar intrusions, the attractiveness of the
    park to the visiting pubic will be greatly diminished.
               harpers ferry center for interpretation and design
        Question. What services are provided to the National Park Service
    by the Harpers Ferry Center for interpretation and design?
        Answer. The Harpers Ferry Center (HFC) plans, designs, and produces
    interpretive media to the 378 units of the National Park System,
    consisting of the following:
        Publications.--park brochures, handbooks, maps, and posters that
    provide visitors with important park information, such as significance
    and health and safety information.
        Museum and Visitor Center Exhibits.--graphics, text and significant
    objects, usually encased and placed within visitor centers or museums
    to help interpret significant park themes.
        Audiovisual Programs.--films, videotape and videodisk productions,
    sound tracks, interactive video products, and computer-driven graphic
    programs. In addition, HFC provides installation, repair and
    replacement services for audiovisual equipment throughout the National
    Park System.
        Wayside Exhibits.--outdoor text and graphic panels. Historic
    Furnishings: historic structures such as rooms or entire buildings that
    are furnished with original or replicated objects appropriate for the
    time period being interpreted.
        Conservation.--treatment and preservation of historic,
    ethnographic, or natural objects included in exhibits.
        Interpretive Planning.--the development of plans that establish the
    modes of interpretation most appropriate for each park, including
    program priorities, staffing, and the recommended types of interpretive
    media.
        HFC staff handle most planning and design work, although there is
    increasing reliance on the use of contractors. Virtually all production
    (exhibits, exhibit cases, wayside exhibits and many audiovisual
    products and historic furnishing replicas) is carried out by
    contractors.
        Question. How would you characterize the importance and usefulness
    of these services?
        Answer. Harpers Ferry Center makes a major contribution to the
    mission of the National Park Service by enhancing, expanding, and
    establishing professional standards to support the parks' interpretive
    and educational missions thus creating a better informed and more
    appreciative park visitor. The payback for this is greater support for
    the preservation and protection of the invaluable natural and cultural
    resources for which the agency is responsible.
        A distinguishing characteristic of the National Park Service is
    that not only does it preserve and protect natural and cultural areas
    but it also undertakes the task of educating the public about these
    places. The National Park Service believes it is important that the
    public understands the significance of these places in the natural
    world or in the history of the Nation, how they function, and why they
    are important to all Americans. This responsibility is carried out with
    the full realization that park visitors are generally in a hurry and
    park interpretive staff may only have their attention for a small
    fraction of any travel day for personal-service interpretation, such as
    guided talks and theater presentations.
        It is important to be able to condense a large amount of
    information and encapsulate it in a compelling and accurate manner.
    This is done through the employment of ``interpretive media,'' in the
    form of park brochures, handbooks, and posters, museum exhibits trail
    or wayside exhibit panels, and audiovisual programs. The Harpers Ferry
    Center is responsible for providing these media to the parks and thus
    helping to ensure the success of each park's educational/interpretive
    mission.
        Question. How has the role of the Center for the National Park
    Service evolved over the past ten years?
        Answer. During the 1960s, the National Park System underwent an
    explosive growth in the number of new areas and visitation. It became
    apparent by 1964 that the National Park Service was unable to keep pace
    in either volume or quality of its interpretive and educational
    programs and media, such as films, exhibits, and publications. The
    National Park Service was hampered by the fact that its interpretive
    design professionals were stationed in various offices scattered around
    the nation. In 1964, the NPS Director created a new office, the
    Division of Interpretation and directed its first chief to fix the
    problem. The solution was to bring together all NPS planning and design
    specialists in museum and visitor center exhibits, artifact
    conservation, historic furnishings, audiovisual products and services,
    and publications under one roof and thus consolidate their efforts.
    This idea led to the creation of the Harpers Ferry Center, which opened
    its doors in March 1970.
        The National Park Service leadership chose Harpers Ferry, West
    Virginia as the location for the new interpretive center in order to
    co-locate with the new Mather Training Center. The Mather Training
    Center's primary purpose was the training of park interpreters, and NPS
    saw significant value in having frequent interaction between those
    National Park Service employees charged with the delivery of
    interpretive programs and those employees who developed media programs
    to support them.
        In 1970, the National Park Service was more centrally organized
    than it is now. Then HFC had near-total control over certain funding in
    such a manner that parks were required to fulfill their interpretive
    media needs, such as slide programs, motion pictures, audio programs,
    outdoor exhibit panels, museum exhibits and publications, at HFC. In
    addition, HFC was a full service facility, responsible for the
    planning, design, and fabrication of all interpretive media products.
        By 1976, the Harpers Ferry Center had 136 employees. Its total
    budget was $12,388,000. By 1986 these numbers had increased in parallel
    with the growth of the National Park System to 229 employees with an
    annual budget from all funding sources of $14,500,700. This increase
    occurred in spite of the decision to eliminate the exhibit fabrication
    shop and accomplish this work through contracts with private sector
    firms. The HFC workforce reached its maximum level of 264 in 1993.
        Question. Please provide a table showing the total funding received
    by the Center from each of the various types of sources (direct
    appropriations, reimbursements from other parks, reimbursements from
    non-NPS sources).
        Answer. The information is shown below:
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP22.001

        Question. What is the total of full-time staffing level anticipated
    in fiscal year 2000 for the Harpers Ferry Center?
        Answer. It is anticipated that HFC will utilize 187 FTE.
        Question. What part of this staff is supported by direct
    appropriation versus reimbursements from individual parks for specific
    work performed by the Center on behalf of the park?
        Answer. Of the 187 FTE, an estimated 57 percent (107.5 FTE) is
    funded from direct appropriations; and 43 percent (79.5 FTE) is funded
    from project or park funding.
        Question. Please provide a table showing the staffing level of the
    Harpers Ferry Center for each of the past ten years divided between
    those supported by direct appropriation, those supported by
    reimbursements from other park units, and those supported by other
    sources.
        Answer. The information follows:

                                                     FISCAL YEAR FTE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fund source              1989   1990   1991   1992   1993   1994   1995   1996   1997   1998    1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Direct Appropriation.............    126    136    133    133    131    126    120   98.5   98.5   106.5   107.5
    Park Reimbursable................    107     96    103    131    119     84     79   60.5   61.5    68.5      73
    Non-Park Reimbursable............     11    8.5      9      6     14     11      7      5      5       5     6.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What other preservation, interpretive, and design
    activities are undertaken by the National Park Service outside those at
    the Center?
        Answer. Some parks, especially the larger ones such as Yellowstone
    or Grand Canyon NPs are able to undertake certain levels of
    preservation, interpretive and design activities on their own, or with
    assistance from the HFC.
        In several instances the parks' cooperating associations are able
    to produce interpretive products, such as publications, maps, and
    videotapes for sale in the parks. When parks undertake to produce their
    own interpretive media, they are to incorporate the standards in terms
    of appearance and accuracy set by HFC and they can rely on assistance
    from the HFC.
        Smaller parks are generally unable to produce their interpretive
    media and thus have greater reliance on HFC. The Harpers Ferry Center
    is not staffed to meet all needs however, and these parks must either
    get on the HFC priority work list or obtain contract assistance and
    advice from the center to meet their needs.
        The NPS Historic Preservation Training Center handles a good deal
    of preservation work, but it is carried out on structures. The Denver
    Service Center also arranges for preservation work on park structures,
    but not on individual exhibits or objects. The NPS Archeological
    Centers at Tallahassee, Santa Fe, Lincoln, Nebraska, and Tucson handle
    preservation work on archeologically recovered artifact material.
        Some interpretive planning work is carried out by the various
    Service's Regional Offices, but it is generally in the form of
    assisting parks to carry out interpretive planning.
                         new river gorge national river
    New River Parkway
        Question. What is the status of the New River Parkway?
        Answer. According to the West Virginia Division of Highways
    (WVDOH), a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being
    completed based on comments that have been received from the public
    meetings that were held on the draft EIS in April and May of 1998. The
    office is also addressing comments from State and Federal agencies.
        Question. When will the final EIS be completed?
        Answer. The EIS is scheduled to be completed in June 1999.
        Question. What preferred alternative will most likely be included
    in the final EIS?
        Answer. The WVDOH believes that Alternative 2A/2D will be included
    in the final EIS. This alternative provides for a bridge crossing from
    West Virginia Highway 20 just upstream of Sandstone to the west side of
    the river, following the existing location of West Virginia Highway 26
    to the Hinton New River Bridge.
        Question. Does the National Park Service agree with this preferred
    alternative?
        Answer. Provided the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding are
    followed, the National Park Service does agree with this alternative.
        Question. What funds have been appropriated to date for the New
    River Parkway?
        Answer. According to the West Virginia Division of Highways, $17.6
    million was included in the Surface Transportation and Uniform
    Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 as a demonstration project.
        Question. What funds remain on hand for the New River Parkway?
        Answer. The WVDOH states that approximately $9 million is
    available.
        Question. What is the total construction cost associated with the
    expected preferred alternative?
        Answer. The total construction cost, according to the WVDOH, is
    approximately $40 million.
        Question. What concerns does the National Park Service have
    regarding the development and construction of the preferred
    alternative?
        Answer. The National Park Service listed several concerns in the
    June 30, 1998, Department of the Interior comment letter on the Draft
    EIS for this project. The most critical issues were excerpted and are
    now contained in the Memorandum of Agreement which is to be signed by
    the National Park Service, West Virginia Department of Highways,
    Federal Highway Administration, and the New River Parkway Authority.
    This will ensure, for example, that there are no impacts to wetlands,
    that all land between the road and the river is acquired by the Highway
    Department in fee or less-than-fee (easements), and that the proposed
    recreation facilities are developed.
        The draft EIS notes that a significant increase in traffic is
    expected due to the parkway's eventual link with I-64, and that
    development pressures could quickly degrade the very resource values
    for which the national river was established. If these pressures are
    not controlled, the outstanding visual qualities of this 9-mile
    corridor could be forever lost, rendering the parkway ``just another
    road,'' rather than a scenic parkway.
    Thurmond
        I understand that the retaining wall of the parking lot next to the
    Thurmond depot is failing.
        Question. What would be the likely result of the failure?
        Answer. If this failure occurs, the entire parking lot could
    possibly be jeopardized, and could possibly affect the foundation of
    the Thurmond Depot, now used as a National Park Service visitor center
    since its restoration in 1995. The distance from the retaining wall on
    the riverbank to the depot is about 50 yards.
        Question. What will it cost to repair the retaining wall?
        Answer. The current estimate is $800,000.
        Question. Are the properties along Commercial Row now stabilized?
    If not, what remains to be done?
        Answer. No, these properties are not stabilized. The final report
    on Commercial Row stabilization was recently completed by the Denver
    Service Center but has not yet been seen by the park staff. All of the
    stabilization work remains to be done on this structure.
    Grandview
        Question. Has the final development concept plan for Grandview been
    completed and released? If not, when do you anticipate that this will
    occur?
        Answer. The final development concept plan was released from the
    Denver Service Center in late April, 1999.
        Question. What are the most pressing needs at Grandview?
        Answer. The most pressing needs at Grandview are: (1)
    Implementation of the Turkey Spur project, which involves the
    conversion of roads to trail and the construction of a parking lot at
    the trailhead; and (2) infrastructure improvements, including
    replacement of existing lines at Grandview as the sewage treatment
    system inherited from the State park system does not meet code. The
    park awaits the anticipated future extension of a municipal sewer line
    from Shady Springs, and although water service is available from Shady
    Springs, the 40 to 50 year-old water lines within the park fail
    frequently and must be replaced.
    Fayette Station Bridge
        I understand that the Fayette Station Bridge has been open to
    traffic for several months.
        Question. What kind of use is the bridge receiving from vehicles?
        Answer. According to the WVDOH, the bridge was opened to traffic in
    October, 1998, and as a result has not yet operated through a primary
    travel season. The Highway Department will be evaluating bridge usage
    during this upcoming travel season.
        Question. Can you characterize usage on a percentage basis from
    individual visitors, commercial river operators, other tourist groups,
    and park staff?
        Answer. No. Bridge usage will be evaluated during this upcoming
    travel season.
        Congress appropriated $200,000 to the Park Service in fiscal year
    1998 for planning interpretive exhibits along the road, including
    turnouts for vehicles.
        Question. What is the status of this work?
        Answer. The park is working with WVDOH to develop a design plan to
    upgrade scenic pullouts and install interpretive signage in this
    corridor.
        Question. What, if any, additional funds are needed to complete
    this work?
        Answer. Until the design plan is completed, this is unknown.
        Additional road improvements are needed to the road leading to and
    from the bridge in order for buses to make use of the bridge.
        Question. Are funds available for this road improvement work?
        Answer. The WVDOH states that the Transportation Act (TEA-21)
    designates $1 million for improvements associated with the operation of
    Fayette Station Road. To date, approximately $650,000 is still
    available for use on this roadway, including improvements to
    accommodate buses.
        Question. What is the status of this work?
        Answer. On May 6, 1999, the WVDOH will be meeting with local
    elected officials, the National Park Service, representatives from the
    whitewater industry and other affected parties to discuss any
    additional improvements on all the roadways directly affected by and or
    leading to the new bridge.
    Kaymoor
        Question. What remains to be done at the Kaymoor tipple site to
    safeguard visitation and the rail system?
        Answer. Since the laying down of the tipple in March 1999, there is
    no longer any danger of the structure falling onto the CSX railroad
    tracks. The NPS contractor has also fenced the site to protect visitors
    from the remaining hazards. All that remains is the installation of
    interpretive waysides, which will tell the Kaymoor story to visitors
    who arrive on site as passengers on commercial raft trips, as private
    boaters, or as trail hikers/mountain bikers.
        Question. Are there other dangerous sites in New River Gorge
    National River that require fencing, the posting of signs, partial or
    full demolition, or other actions to safeguard visitors and park staff?
        Answer. Possibly. In 1998, the National Park Service acquired the
    Nuttalburg Tipple and conveyor as part of a 1021-acre tract purchased
    from the Nuttall Estate. Although an official inspection has not yet
    been done, initial assessment by park staff indicates that the
    condition of Nuttalburg structures are even worse than those at
    Kaymoor. It is quite likely that at least partial demolition, fencing
    and signs will be necessary.
                     national conservation training center
    Training
        Question. What types of courses are offered at the training center?
        Answer. The NCTC offers a variety of courses designed for
    conservation professionals, both technical and non-technical. Program
    areas include Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Conservation,
    Computers, Management and Supervision and Employee Excellence. Course
    topics range from ecosystem conservation to fish health, geographic
    information system applications to conservation leadership. A copy of
    NCTC's annual catalog of course offerings is provided for the
    Committee's reference.
        Question. How many different courses did the training center offer
    in 1998?
        Answer. The NCTC offered approximately 250 different course
    sessions in fiscal year 1998.
        Question. How many different courses does the training center
    anticipate offering in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The NCTC expects to offer approximately 250 different
    course sessions by the end of fiscal year 1999.
        Question. What are the most popular courses?
        Answer. Among the most popular courses that required multiple
    sessions in the past year were:
      --The IMPACT course that brings in FWS managers and project leaders
            from across the country for a week of leadership training.
      --The academy courses for new refuge, ecological FWS and fisheries
            employees.
        In addition, courses related to Endangered Species Act topics have
    long waiting lists of FWS and non-FWS students. The NCTC ``An Approach
    to Ecosystem Conservation'' course and our geographic information
    system and new technology courses have also been very popular.
        Question. Please provide a table showing the number of students
    that attended NCTC class during 1998 (and anticipated for 1999),
    breaking out Fish and Wildlife FWS students, other DOI students, and
    non-DOI students as well as students for non-NCTC courses given at the
    training center.
        Answer. The following table shows student statistics for the NCTC
    for fiscal year 1998 and estimated statistics for 1999. The increase in
    attendance reflects increased awareness of NCTC and the increase in the
    number of on-site dormitories (third lodge opened in March, 1999) to
    house students.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal years--
                                                   -------------------------
                       Students                                      1999
                                                        1998      estimated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCTC Training--FWS participants...............        4,300        4,500
    NCTC Training--other DOI participants.........          100          150
    NCTC Training--non DOI participants...........        1,110        1,200
    Other events--FWS Participants................          750          800
    Other events-non FWS Participants.............        4,000        4,900
                                                   -------------------------
          Totals..................................       10,260       11,550
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What percentage of classroom use is for non-Fish and
    Wildlife sponsored classes?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, approximately 49 percent of NCTC usage
    was for non-FWS sponsored training and activities. During fiscal year
    1999, the non-FWS usage is about 46 percent.
        Question. Do you anticipate that percentage changing in the next
    several years? If so, how and why?
        Answer. The increase in on-site accommodations, (the March, 1999
    opening of the third lodge), offers more opportunity for non-FWS
    entities to conduct training at NCTC. Thus we expect the percentage of
    these non-FWS users to in crease somewhat in the future.
    Dormitories
        Question. Even though the third dormitory at the National
    Conservation Training Center has been opened only a few weeks, is there
    already a need for a fourth dormitory at the center?
        Answer. All beds in the new lodge are booked into calendar year
    2000. If a fourth lodge was built, current demand indicates it would be
    fully utilized. The NCTC was designed to accommodate 250 daily users,
    thus another lodge would bring us closer to design capacity. However, a
    fourth lodge is not included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
        Question. Would a fourth dormitory unduly compete with private
    sector facilities in the Shepherdstown area, or is the need for rooms
    beyond the capacity or interest of the local establishments in
    Shepherdstown?
        Answer. No. Presently 20-30 NCTC participants stay offsite each
    week in nearby hotels. In addition, the NCTC turns away approximately
    80 people per week due to lack of onsite lodging, since some parties
    are unwilling to hold events at the NCTC without onsite lodging. A
    fourth lodge would address a portion of that demand and still leave a
    number of people using offsite lodging. However, the Department's Five
    Year Construction Plan does not include a fourth dormitory at this
    time. Our primary focus is on resolving health and safety issues at
    current facilities.
                     canaan valley national wildlife refuge
        Question. What types of public outreach activities are the Fish and
    Wildlife Service conducting to ensure that the input of local residents
    is taken into consideration as the FWS continues to develop the refuge?
    Who is participating in these activities?
        Answer. In 1994, the Preliminary Station Management Plan for Canaan
    Valley NWR was completed with input from local residents. The station's
    hunt plan was developed with public input and approved in November
    1997. Current outreach activities consist of exchanging information,
    working with the refuge friends group (Friends of the 500th),
    developing personal contacts, providing public presentations, and
    providing news releases to the local media.
        Additionally, the Refuge Manager is a member of the following local
    groups: the Tucker County Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club, and the
    Gateway Project Environment/Recreation Committee. The Refuge is
    scheduled to initiate a Comprehensive Conservation Plan in 2001 to
    address how the refuge will be managed in accordance with the Refuge
    Improvement Act of 1997. Local residents will be encouraged to
    participate in theplanning process.
        Question. Is more public outreach needed?
        Answer. Yes. The Canaan Valley NWR plans to hire an Outdoor
    Recreation Planner before the end of fiscal year 1999 for conducting an
    expanded public outreach and environmental education.
        Question. Please describe the status of land acquisition for the
    Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
        Answer. Within the past 14 months, the FWS has acquired
    approximately 1,550 acres with a total cost of about $5 million at
    Canaan Valley NWR. There are currently seven properties under option at
    a cost of $1,783,100; all properties are expected to close by the end
    of fiscal year 1999. Appraisals for three other ownerships totaling
    approximately 600 acres are expected in early June with an estimated
    value of $2.6 million. In addition, 13 other willing sellers have been
    identified and appraisals are being initiated on these 13 tracts, which
    have an estimated value of $2.5 million.
                  ohio river islands national wildlife refuge
        Question. When will the comprehensive conservation plan for Ohio
    River islands be completed and available?
        Answer. The draft Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive
    Conservation Plan will be available for public review and comment
    during August, 1999. The FWS expects to release the final document in
    December, 1999.
        Question. What kinds of invasive species threaten the natural
    species and ecosystems of the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife
    Refuge?
        Answer. The underwater habitats are being invaded by zebra mussels
    which have an adverse impact on native freshwater mussels. In addition,
    over 40 percent of the refuge's upland habitats contain invasive plant
    species including Japanese knotweed, Russian knotweed, mile-a-minute,
    purple loosestrife, multiflora rose, and garlic mustard. These invasive
    species are altering native plant communities, halting natural
    succession to flood plain forests, and reducing the habitat value for a
    variety of migratory bird species.
        Question. What other kinds of threats are there to the refuge--its
    species and ecosystems?
        Answer. Additional threats to the refuge include: unnatural erosion
    due to locks/dams on river, sand and gravel dredging, sedimentation,
    non-point source pollution, oil spills, and lack of public
    understanding of the Ohio River resources.
        Question. What is the most pressing or dangerous threat to the
    refuge?
        Answer. The most pressing threats to the refuge are erosion and
    sand and gravel dredging.
        Question. What is the current staffing level of the Ohio River
    Islands National Wildlife Refuge?
        Answer. There are currently five permanent employees at the Ohio
    River NWR.
        Question. Is this different from the full authorized staffing
    level? If so, what funds would be required to bring the staffing level
    at Ohio River Islands up to its full authorized level?
        Answer. The station's most recent authorized staffing chart,
    approved in 1993, contains five full time employees. Since that time,
    the refuge has grown in size and the issues that the refuge faces are
    more complex. The FWS recognized this, and as a result, the Ohio River
    Islands NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan was initiated, one of the
    earliest in Region 5. When the CCP is completed, a new staffing chart
    that reflects the station's needs, as identified in the CCP, will be
    completed. The Refuge Operations Needs System will be updated at that
    time to reflect the needs identified by the CCP, and any additional
    potential positions will be prioritized through the RONS system.
        Question. Does the President's budget request for fiscal year 2000
    request sufficient funds to bring staffing at Ohio River Is lands up to
    the full staffing level?
        Answer. Yes. The President's budget request for the Ohio River
    Islands NWR is $455,000, with an additional $38,000 for invasive
    species control. A portion of these funds may be used to hire a
    Maintenance Worker to conduct the invasive species control work.
        Question. What kinds of recreational opportunities are present at
    the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge?
        Answer. The refuge provides a variety of wildlife dependent
    activities to include fishing, hunting (archery deer, small game,
    waterfowl), photography, environmental education, interpretation, and
    wildlife observation. Non-consumption use visitation is by far the
    highest.
        Question. How do you measure visitation at a refuge that consists
    of a series of dispersed islands that extend for miles in a major
    river?
        Answer. Visitation occurs throughout the year with highest period
    of use from May through September. Staff, volunteers and seasonal help
    record levels on public use data sheets incidental to their fieldwork.
    Outreach efforts are also conducted on weekends. Accurate estimates of
    use, considering the unique features of the refuge and current staff
    levels, are very difficult to ascertain.
        Question. What is the status of land acquisition activities at Ohio
    River Islands?
        Answer. The current balance of funds previously appropriated for
    land acquisition at Ohio River Islands NWR is approximately $2.2
    million. Land acquisition activities with this funding are currently
    centered on seven islands and associated mainland tracts comprising
    approximately 340 acres valued at approximately $655,000. These
    acquisition projects are all in different stages of the acquisition
    process which encompasses appraisal, negotiations, and pre-acquisition
    site assessment. Acquisition efforts to expend the remaining funds will
    focus on mainland embayments once planning is completed.
        Question. How many islands (or portions of islands) remain to be
    acquired? How many acres do these islands constitute? How many high-
    priority sites have been identified for mainland acquisition? How many
    acres do these sites constitute?
        Answer. Nine islands remain to be acquired, totaling approximately
    1,000 acres (including underwater acreage). Approved in 1995, the
    Embayment/Wetland Expansion Package (5,400 acres) included 100 high-
    priority mainland sites located in the states of Ohio, West Virginia,
    Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. Pending completion of the Comprehensive
    Conservation Plan in 1999, there are 18 sites, totaling 1,825 acres,
    with an estimated cost of $3 million, identified for the first phase of
    acquisition for the Embayment/Wetland Expansion Package. However,
    funding for the Ohio Rivers NWR for land acquisition is not included in
    the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget, due to higher priorities
    elsewhere. These parcels will be evaluated and considered in future
    budget requests.
                        national fish hatcheries program
        Question. Has the fisheries program received the same level of
    fixed cost support as the rest of the Fish and Wildlife Service during
    the past ten years in the President's budget request? If not, why not?
        Answer. The term ``fixed costs'' usually refers to those expenses
    that the FWS has no management control over, such as annual federal pay
    and retirement adjustments and payments to other federal agencies for
    rent, unemployment compensation, and workmen's' compensation. These are
    presented in the budget as ``uncontrollable costs.''
        Over the past ten years, all FWS programs have received the federal
    pay and retirement adjustments that have been proposed by the
    Administration and approved by the Congress. The personnel compensation
    and benefits portion of the Fisheries and other program budgets have
    been adjusted by the percentage increase proposed and enacted for
    salaries of federal employees. The FWS budgets for other uncontrollable
    costs, such as GSA space rent, in a centralized FWS wide administrative
    support account.
        The FWS's personnel compensation and benefit expenses are the
    largest ``fixed costs'' components and comprise about 55 percent of its
    operating budget. The annual federal pay and retirement adjustments
    assure that other program operating resources do not have to be used to
    absorb these uncontrollable cost increases.
        Question. I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
    emphasizing restoration and recovery of native aquatic species in the
    current and future plans for the hatchery program. What will be the
    impact of this emphasis on existing and traditional hatchery
    operations, such as support to Indian Tribes in stocking fish?
        Answer. In order to be as effective as possible with available
    funding, the Fish and Wildlife Service is focusing its National Fish
    Hatchery System on the restoration and recovery of native aquatic
    species and management activities that maintain aquatic resources in a
    healthy condition. The FWS will work in partnership with Tribes to
    redirect support in stocking fish to restoration and recovery of native
    species or to identify alternative mechanisms to continue support for
    fish stocking activities.
        Question. What percentage of your hatchery operations are currently
    being spent on native species? What percentage of your hatchery
    operations are currently being spent on threatened and endangered
    native species? What changes do you anticipate in these percentages
    over the next five years?
        Answer. Approximately 91 percent of hatchery operations funding
    currently is spent on native species, including the approximately 11
    percent spent on threatened and endangered species. The Fish and
    Wildlife Service expects these percentages to increase over the next
    five years.
        Question. What, if anything, needs to be done to expand, increase,
    or refocus the hatchery system to restore and recover more species and
    their habitats?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service will continue the development
    of its National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers, and Fish
    Health Centers as integrated aquatic resource centers that facilitate
    and contribute to watershed restoration partnerships. This will include
    the development of a ``Standard of Excellence'' for the operation of
    the National Fish Hatchery System that addresses considerations such as
    maintaining genetic diversity, fish health, best science and
    technology, wild stock interactions, and evaluation and monitoring.
    Needs associated with this effort will be documented in the FWS's
    Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS).
        Question. Which if any, of the hatcheries are currently under-
    utilized? Which, if any, of the hatcheries are ill-suited to
    participate in future hatchery operations of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service? Why are these hatcheries ill-suited?
        Answer. Only the Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery in Virginia
    and the Berkshire National Fish Hatchery in Massachusetts are currently
    under-utilized, the result of reduced production related to shifts in
    priorities. However, both of these facilities have the potential to
    contribute more in the restoration of coastal and riverine species. The
    FWS has not yet determined which, if any, hatcheries would be ill-
    suited to participate in future hatchery operations.
        Question. Do you have any plans to close (or transfer) any
    hatcheries? Are you looking into the possibility, of having to close
    (or transfer) additional hatcheries?
        Answer. As the Fish and Wildlife Service focuses its National Fish
    Hatchery System on the restoration and recovery of native species, the
    Service will work in partnership with its partners and stakeholders to
    identify, over time, alternative mechanisms to continue support for
    other hatchery activities, such as cost reimbursement, transfer, or
    redirection. Closing a hatchery would be a last resort.
        Question. If hatcheries are refocused on recovery and restoration
    of native species, then shouldn't they receive funding from the
    Ecological Services budget? Or shouldn't that portion of the hatchery
    budget devoted to restoration and recovery efforts be included in the
    Ecological Service's budget activity?
        Answer. No, the endangered species recovery program funding is used
    for a very specific purpose: the development, implementation and
    monitoring of recovery plans. All other FWS programs--and all other
    Interior Department programs--implement these recovery plans. The most
    effective way for the Fish and Wildlife Service to use its appropriated
    funds to restore and conserve aquatic resources is through integrated
    program partnerships, such as are now occurring. All program areas are
    responsible for contributing wherever they can to the restoration and
    recovery of native species, be it through the management actions taken
    on a Refuge, the Partners habitat restoration program in Ecological
    Services, or the use of the National Fish Hatchery System as a recovery
    and restoration tool. The best solution is for all FWS programs to be
    adequately funded to carry out their part of the partnership; the
    concern is not where the money is in the FWS's budget, but the
    aggregate level of funding and the effectiveness of the Program in
    working in an integrated manner to meet the FWS's responsibil ities in
    aquatic resource conservation.
                             leetown science center
        Question. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations for Interior and
    related agencies included $250,000 to plan and design a replacement of
    the heating and air conditioning system at the National Fish Health
    Research Laboratory (NFHRL) of the Leetown Science Center. What is the
    status of that work?
        Answer. As part of the HVAC system design work, engineers from the
    Division of Engineering of the Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the
    laboratory on March 25, 1999. The inspection confirmed that the HVAC
    system is inefficient and beyond its useful life. The inspection also
    revealed serious problems with the building's roof and ceiling
    structures. The engineers advised that repairs to the roof may be a
    higher priority than repairs to the HVAC. Engineering design for the
    HVAC system, roof and ceiling will be complete by the end of fiscal
    year 1999.
        Question. How much additional funding will be required to complete
    the new heating and air conditioning system for the National Fish
    Health Laboratory?
        Answer. Based on the inspection report, repairing the HVAC system
    and installation will cost $700,000; the roof repairs will cost
    $350,000; and ceiling repairs will cost $150,000.
        Question. Are these funds included in the President's fiscal year
    2000 budget request?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 request does not include
    funds for these repairs. However, USGS has begun to address these kinds
    of maintenance issues in the $1.5 million increase requested for
    Maintenance and Capital Improvement within the restructured Facilities
    activity. For fiscal year 2000, the bureau's highest priority deferred
    maintenance projects (health and safety issues) were targeted before
    the extent of this problem was discovered.
        Question. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations for Interior and
    related agencies included a $775,000 increase for Leetown Science
    Center programs aimed at fish health studies in the Chesapeake Bay,
    fish passage research, and acid mine drainage. Please describe the
    importance and goals of these research efforts.
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget included an
    increase of $775,000 for the Leetown Science Center: $500,000 was
    provided to address problems related to fish passage, $200,000 to
    investigate fish health problems in Chesapeake Bay and $75,000 to
    develop and test new technology to address problems related to acid
    mine drainage. The projects are described below.
    Fish passage--$500,000
        This work provides data used by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Forest Service
    to provide for effective fish passage in the rivers managed by them. It
    will provide data for the FERC re-licensing of dams on more than 300
    sites in the Mid-West and in the Northeast and to aid resource managers
    in restoring threatened fish, such as Atlantic salmon, and endangered
    fish, such as shortnose sturgeon. The research will design and test
    structures to improve passage of anadromous and other migratory fish.
    It will determine the specifics of passage requirements for migratory
    fish in terms of their biological, habitat and design needs to get them
    past man-made structures in rivers. The research will determine
    population genetic structure as it relates to fish biodiversity as
    affected by dams and mitigation of diversity problems. It will
    determine the nature of fish restoration problems as evidenced by lack
    of passage in rivers.
    Chesapeake bay fish health--$200,000
        The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most valuable estuaries on the
    east coast, in terms of recreational and commercial use of natural
    resources. In recent years, outbreaks of Pfiesteria have produced fish
    kills and may be linked to health concerns for watermen. Joint USGS/BRD
    and State of Maryland analyses from fish kill and disease events
    suggest fungi and bacteria may have been the primary infectious agents
    that caused lesions in striped bass, white perch, bullheads and other
    estuarine fish species in Chesapeake Bay in 1998.
        The research seeks to determine the relationship between fish
    health, fungal infections, and Pfiesteria. Preliminary results indicate
    a fungal infection may be the primary cause for fish lesions in the
    Chesapeake Bay making the fish more susceptible to Pfiesteria and
    harmful algal blooms. The research will investigate the relationship
    between fish health and microbial loading in terms of
    immunosuppression, fungal response, and the development of lesions, and
    the role of nonpoint source runoff from agriculture and other sources
    on microbial loading in the Chesapeake Bay. It will compare the
    prevalence of lesions and their occurrence in tributaries to nutrient
    and sediment loading and contrast it with riparian zone condition.
    Acid mine drainage--$75,000
        This study supports OSM (Clean Streams Initiative), NPS (2,500
    abandoned mine land (AML) sites), BLM (several hundred thousand AML
    sites), USFS (20,000-50,000 AML sites), USGS (statement of mutual
    intent), EPA (Mine Drainage Initiative), States (Departments of
    Environmental Protection) and the mining industry (hardrock and coal).
        Study objectives include laboratory scale tests to identify metal
    hydrolysis reaction rates, sludge volume, density and settling
    characteristics, and identification and development of the least cost
    method for metal sludge separation and thickening. The research will
    explore new methods of polymer addition to accelerate sludge settling
    using a porous bed reactor. It will compare metal precipitate
    characteristics and handling costs identified in the field using the
    LSC and standard mine drainage treatment methods. Finally it will
    create decision support models(software) to be used by managers to
    predict best treatment practices to form, separate, and concentrate
    metal precipitates from acidic mine drainage. The software will
    incorporate LSC process simulation models currently under development
    with models to be developed that follow precipitate formation both with
    and withoutpolymer addition.
        Question. What is the status of these research efforts?
        Answer. Study plans have been completed for work on fish passage.
    Field and laboratory studies are currently underway since fish have
    begun their annual migration. Initial studies are focused on Atlantic
    salmon in the Connecticut River and shad in the Susquehanna River.
        Work on acid mine drainage technology has begun. The Appalachian
    Fruit Research Station (USDA) in Kearneysville, West Virginia is
    collaborating with the Leetown Science Center to investigate the
    potential for using sludge produced by the AMD treatment process to
    benefit agriculture. Studies are also underway regarding minimizing the
    environmental effects of the acidic water and sludge associated with
    the treatment process
        Field work on fish health problems in Chesapeake Bay will begin the
    first week of June. Cooperative agreements with Universities in
    Virginia and Maryland to assist in the data collection are in place.
        Question. Were these funds requested as part of the President's
    fiscal year 1999 budget request? Were these funds requested as base
    increases, reflecting long-term (multi-year) research needs?
        Answer. Yes. These funds were requested as part of the President's
    fiscal year 1999 Budget. The initial study plans were based on multi-
    year proposals ranging from three to five years with ``level'' funding
    for each year.
        Question. Does it make sense to halt these research efforts after a
    single year? Why does the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request
    propose to stop these research efforts after a single year of funding?
        Answer. These efforts could continue under the Integrated Science
    line item--some may be specifically identified as DOI Science
    priorities and others such as Chesapeake Bay efforts may be included in
    the Place-based Studies component--rather than under the Biological
    Research and Monitoring line item. To the extent any project/study
    decreases do occur, they would reflect the fact that DOI bureaus have
    identified higher priority research needs for fiscal year 2000.
                   kanawha-new river water-quality assessment
        Question. What is the status of the Kanawha-New River National
    Water-Quality Assessment study?
        Answer. The Kanawha-New River National Water-Quality Assessment
    (NAWQA) study is on schedule, and USGS has published four technical
    reports and made six presentations at scientific meetings as of April
    30, 1999. A team of nine technical staff is based in Charleston, West
    Virginia. All planned environmental-quality samples were collected
    during fiscal years 1996-1998, and the team is now reviewing and
    archiving the resulting data and preparing interpretive reports.
        Eleven reports, in addition to the four mentioned, will be
    published during fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The USGS is
    working on the first five reports for publication this year, and the
    remaining six reports will be started within six months.
        Question. What are the main components of the study?
        Answer. The study focuses on surface-water quality as it is
    affected by coal mining, disposal of human and animal waste, and
    industrial activities; and on ground-water quality as it is affected by
    agricultural activities, coal mining, and disposal of human and animal
    waste. All work was completed within the context of the nationally-
    consistent NAWQA sampling design.
        The team investigated ground-water quality down hill from surface
    coal mines that have been fully reclaimed to present reclamation
    standards. This component included the Kanawha and Monongahela River
    basins in West Virginia and parts of western Pennsylvania.
        In conjunction with other sampling within the NAWQA program, the
    Kanawha-New River NAWQA team measured changes in water quality over the
    past 20 years in streams at about 180 sites in West Virginia and
    Pennsylvania. USGS samples collected during 1979-1981 were compared to
    the latest samples in order to evaluate the regional effects of water-
    quality laws, upgrades to wastewater treatment and mining practices.
        USGS' standard sampling in the Kanawha-New River study area
    included eight surface-water sites in West Virginia, and three more
    surface-water sites in Virginia. Ground water was sampled from one
    aquifer of the Appalachian Plateau in West Virginia, and another
    aquifer in the Blue Ridge in North Carolina and Virginia. Biological
    sampling was done for fish and benthic insects at all the surface-water
    sites; and one-time sampling for fish and insects was also done at an
    additional ten sites in West Virginia.
        Beyond the sampling activities that have been concluded, NAWQA will
    continue to sample some surface-water sites in West Virginia. The USGS
    will maintain sampling at two locations through 1999 and subsequent
    years of low intensity phase sampling. The two sites for continued
    monitoring are: the Kanawha River near Windfield and the Clear Fork
    near Whitesville, both in West Virginia.
        Question. When will the study be completed?
        Answer. A summary report for the first data-collection cycle will
    be completed by September 30, 2000.
        Question. What results or findings have come out of the study to
    date?
        Answer. Fecal bacteria are rare in ground water from domestic wells
    in West Virginia, if the wells are constructed according to current
    design standards. Earlier studies had shown frequent fecal
    contamination of domestic wells but did not distinguish between
    properly and poorly constructed wells.
        Several non-native fish species have been found in areas of the New
    River basin where they were not previously known. These fish have been
    found upstream from both Kanawha Falls, a natural barrier to fish
    migration since the last Ice Age, and upstream from dams. The New River
    has had a fish community that is distinct from the communities in both
    Atlantic Slope and Ohio River basins. The evidence indicates that
    people continue to transport non-native fish past these barriers.
        Values of pH are generally lower and concentrations of sulfate,
    iron, and manganese are generally higher in ground water from wells in
    the southern coal province of West Virginia than in the northern coal
    province. These facts are surprising because acid mine drainage is much
    more common in the northern coal province than in the southern
    province.
        Streams in central West Virginia and western Pennsylvania are
    becoming less acidic. The median pH at summer base flow in streams
    increased about 0.5 unit from 1980 to 1998. Alkalinity of the streams
    also increased and was reflected in decreased concentrations of iron
    and manganese. These effects would be expected as active mines comply
    with discharge permit limits and as the worst cases of acid drainage
    from abandoned mines are controlled. Median concentrations of sulfate
    increased, however, reflecting the cumulative effects of continued
    mining.
        Typical radon concentrations in ground water near reclaimed surface
    coal mines in West Virginia and western Pennsylvania are about half the
    concentrations measured in similar wells not close to mines. Median
    radon concentrations in domestic wells in the Blue Ridge in North
    Carolina and Virginia are six times the formerly proposed Maximum
    Contaminant Level (300 picocuries per liter) permitted in public
    drinking-water supplies. At the present time, there is no Maximum
    Contaminant Level for radon, so whether the levels found are a health
    concern cannot be determined now.
        Question. What statements, if any, can these results be used to
    make regarding the impact of mine reclamation a ctivities on water
    quality?
        Answer. Reclamation activities at active and abandoned mines are
    successful in eliminating the most severe impacts on water quality and
    have produced region-wide improvements. Even under current regulations,
    however, the total load of dissolved solids in streams, particularly of
    sulfate, appears to be increasing in proportion to the amount of land
    disturbed by mining. Mine reclamation and controls on active mining
    have been fairly effective in controlling acid mine drainage and metal
    pollution. However, the continuing increase in the amount of area
    disturbed by mining appears to be leading to increased levels of
    sediment and dissolved solids in streams.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        For several years, I have secured funding for two partnership
    programs, one around Lake Champlain and one along the Connecticut
    River, that fund just this type of project--ones that bubble up from
    the community. Although I understand you were under considerable budget
    restraints, I was dismayed that funding for these two programs was cut
    by more than half last year. Vermonters found it even odder since the
    Connecticut had just been named an ``American Heritage River'' and Lake
    Champlain was still basking in the glory of being promoted to ``Great
    Lake'' status.
        Question. If there is not adequate funding in the National Park
    Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, what other
    Department of the Interior programs would be able to make up the short
    fall?
        Answer. The issue of funding availability is not the only issue in
    this instance. In general, the NPS does not intend that the Rivers,
    Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program fund projects on a
    long term basis. Rather, the intent is to work with partners on a short
    term basis, assisting in the creation of a vision and stimulating non-
    federal involvement. After the project is on a firm foundation, it is
    intended that the resources of the RTCA be redirected to assist in
    initiating other partnership projects.
        Other NPS operational programs--such as national trails and wild
    and scenic rivers--provide limited funding through cooperative
    agreements to partners, but are usually designated for specific
    collaborative projects and initiatives over a short period. Given the
    fact that a heritage corridor study is underway for the Lake Champlain
    corridor, authorizing funding for it as a national heritage corridor
    could open the door to specific appropriations for that corridor,
    similar to funds which now assist the nine heritage areas established
    in 1996 under Public Law 104-333.
        There have been no funds specifically authorized to support the
    designated American Heritage Rivers (AHR), but the partnership council
    overseeing AHR activities along the Connecticut River is examining many
    potential sources of funding, Federal and otherwise. The National Park
    Service is willing to continue to assist in the identification of good
    projects for the Partnership Program and to provide some assistance in
    its administration, but it is more appropriate to look to other
    agencies and private organizations and foundations to continue its
    funding.
        Question. What is the status for the feasibility study for a Lake
    Champlain Heritage Corridor, and does the Department have funding set
    aside for new corridors that are recommended by the Department?
        Answer. The study is nearing completion and will be available for
    public comment in September, 1999. The Department of the Interior funds
    Heritage areas authorized by Congress. Therefore, no funds are set
    aside at this point.
        Question. In Vermont, I have secured funding to start two pilot
    projects to integrate social, economic and natural resource data using
    Geographic Information System technology and build a Web-based
    interactive tool that can help planners assess the impact of
    development on the local watershed, fish and wildlife habitat and open
    space. These pilots will also help state, federal agencies and local
    agencies prioritize land conservation and wildlife habitat protection
    projects. This tool will finally allow citizens and planners to
    visualize the potential land use and environmental changes in their
    community. The U.S. Geological Survey fiscal year 2000 request includes
    $10 million to expand the National Spatial Data Infrastructure through
    a Community Federal Information Partnership to enhance local
    government's ability to use spatial data for land use planning. How
    will the Department select communities to participate in the grant
    program and how many do you expect to be selected?
        Answer. The Community/Federal Information Partnership (C/FIP) is an
    interagency initiative to advance the National Spatial Data
    Infrastructure through partnerships with communities. C/FIP is designed
    to support community-based activities similar to those that you
    describe. Currently, the planned method for selecting participating
    communities will be through a consolidated multi-agency Request for
    Proposals (RFP) announcement to be developed by the Federal Geographic
    Data Committee (FGDC) member agencies. To date, six Federal agencies
    have proposed to be a part of the C/FIP program. The RFP will be issued
    through the FGDC and will describe the overall objectives and
    parameters of the initiative. In addition, each member agency will
    describe its mission specific program components and criteria as part
    of the announcement. The FGDC anticipates that a number of both large
    and small projects will be funded under this announcement and that
    these funds will be leveraged with matching grants. The USGS goal is to
    direct approximately two-thirds of appropriated funds to competitive
    grants and one-third to agency programs to make data more accessible to
    communities. However, they cannot project at this time how many grants
    will be issued or how many communities will be involved.
        The proposed C/FIP initiative is contingent on Congress providing
    fiscal year 2000 appropriations. However, planned C/FIP proposal
    timelines are as follows: October to December 1999--RFP announced;
    January to March 2000--Application period; and April to June 2000--
    Review of proposals and announcement of awards.
        Question. Has the Department worked with the State of Vermont on a
    Gap Analysis project or is one under consideration?
        Answer. The Department has a very productive partnership with the
    State of Vermont in conducting a Gap Analysis project that is scheduled
    for completion this September. The project is being implemented jointly
    with the State of New Hampshire through the Vermont Cooperative Fish
    and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Vermont. Already,
    preliminary products from the Vermont project are being used in
    ecological reserve selections. This work is based on GAP land cover
    maps and a sophisticated analysis of landscape features linked to
    biological diversity. Cooperators that have shared in the costs of the
    project include the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, the Silvio O.
    Conte Refuge, The Nature Conservancy, and the Green Mountain National
    Forest.
        Question. A great deal of concern has been generated in Vermont by
    your fiscal year 2000 USGS budget proposal to eliminate support for
    gaging activities in the Lake Champlain basin. Instead, your budget
    request proposes the gaging be supported by ``alternative funding
    arrangements'' with Federal, State and local agencies. Has the
    Department identified other funding for this program and have you
    formed agreements with any other Federal agency to cover the cost of
    the gaging activities? How did the Department select Lake Champlain for
    this reduction? Where are the gaging stations that are identified for
    an increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget?
        Answer. The USGS has been involved in discussions with
    representatives of the Lake Champlain Basin Program, the State of
    Vermont, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding
    possible alternative funding arrangements that would allow gaging
    activities in the Lake to continue into fiscal year 2000 and beyond.
    However, to date none of the involved organizations have been able to
    offer funds that might allow these activities to continue. USGS
    undertook these gaging activities as part of a water quality study
    which was funded under the auspices of the Lake Champlain Special
    Designation Act. The study began in 1990 and was planned to last for
    five years. USGS has continued to operate the gaging stations for four
    years beyond that time frame, but within the proposed budget
    constraints it is impossible to continue this work in fiscal year 2000
    in the absence of funding support from other agencies.
        The gaging stations that will be identified for an increase in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget are part of the Real-Time Hazards Initiative.
    This initiative is aimed at improving USGS's ability to deliver real-
    time streamflow information, to ensure that the National Weather
    Service has current data for flood forecasting and warning, and to help
    emergency response agencies concentrate their efforts where they are
    most needed. USGS is involved in discussions with the National Weather
    Service and other Federal agencies, to determine where real-time
    information, provided through improved telecommunications equipment, is
    most urgently needed to protect at-risk communities from the threat of
    floods.
        When we passed the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act in 1992,
    one of the most important issues was restoration of native fish and
    wildlife habitat in the watershed. The Fish and Wildlife Service made a
    long term commitment to this goal by becoming one of the lead federal
    partners in the Lake Champlain Basin Program. Unfortunately, due to
    budget cuts to the Lake Champlain Office operations budget over the
    past few years, I do not believe the Fish and Wildlife Service has been
    able to meet its commitment. Considerable pressure is growing in
    Vermont to speed up the time line for restoration of Lake Champlain.
        Question. At what budget level could the Fish and Wildlife Service
    fully meet the commitments made in the Lake Champlain Action Plan? If
    that Plan was accelerated by 10 years what level of the funding would
    be needed for the Lake Champlain Office?
        Answer. Increased annual operational funding for the Lake Champlain
    Fish and Wildlife Resources Complex (including the Lake Champlain
    Office and Pittsford National Fish Hatchery) to $1,500,000 and 23 FTE's
    (an increase of $500,000 and 7 FTE's above current budget amounts)
    would allow the FWS to carry out the following program expectations on
    Lake Champlain:
        Provide Federal leadership implementing the Nonindigenous Aquatic
    Nuisance Prevention and Control Act in the Lake Champlain watershed.
    ($200,000/3 FTE)
        Carry out a private lands program with increased emphasis on
    restoring habitats impacted by invasive species and that is fully
    integrated with all aspects of U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill
    activities in the Lake Champlain watershed. ($75,000)
        Make a substantial contribution to damage assessment and
    restoration activities associated with contaminated habitats. ($50,000/
    1 FTE)
        Carry out an aggressive, focused program of habitat assessment and,
    where feasible, restoration associated with current fish stocking and
    assessment. ($100,000/1 FTE)
        Become a fully engaged partner in Lake Champlain imperiled species
    inventory and restoration efforts, particularly as they relate to the
    threat from invasive species. ($50,000/1 FTE)
        Implement a Geographic Information System program that includes
    data layer creation and biological modeling, and that is fully
    integrated with all aspects of the present mission. ($25,000/1 FTE)
        If the Plan was accelerated by 10 years our best estimate is that
    an additional $250,000 and 4 FTE's would be required for a total of
    $1,750,000/27 FTE's. It is difficult to project a difference in
    restoration accomplishments that could be realized under enhanced
    funding and staffing between 10 years and a longer time frame. For
    example, to fulfill the FWS's role in developing and implementing a
    nonindigenous species management plan, the FWS will help implement a
    public decision-making process on the long-term management of sea
    lamprey, provide technical support to zebra mussel monitoring, and
    identify and implement control of purple loosestrife. In these cases,
    our actions and the costs associated with them will depend on
    information that is not currently available.
        Lake Champlain is an interstate and international water body, and
    conservation of the Lake's fish and wildlife is an important FWS
    function. In fiscal year 2000 the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
    Resources Complex will have a combined budget just under $1,000,000/16
    FTE's, most of which will be used in the Lake Champlain watershed.
    Approximately $800,000 of this funding is found in the FWS's Fish and
    Wildlife Management Assistance and Hatchery Operations budgets and
    $200,000 is in the FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program budget.
    The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, New England Ecological
    Services Field Office, New York Ecological Services Field Office and
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife FWS Law Enforcement Agent stationed in Essex
    Junction, Vermont, are also part of the FWS's capability on Lake
    Champlain. Along with representatives from our Regional Office in
    Hadley, Massachusetts, these programs are involved in implementation of
    the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act through the FWS's Lake
    Champlain Ecosystem Team.
        However, this level of funding is not included in the President's
    Budget request and is not a priority of the Department.
        Question. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been working on a new
    regulation for falconry that would affect educational falcon institutes
    like the one in Manchester, Vermont. When does the FWS expect to
    release the draft regulation? Is the FWS still considering the creation
    of a new class of permits specifically for educational facilities that
    would allow students to handle falcons but not require individual
    permits for each student?
        Answer. The FWS plans to issue a scoping notice to seek public
    comment on the continued permitting of falconry schools in the U.S. The
    FWS anticipates that this notice will be published in the Federal
    Register later this year. The falconry school in Vermont is one of only
    two in the U.S., and both are permitted under a general education
    permit. Although current FWS regulations specify that students at these
    schools may practice falconry, and that each student must have a
    falconry permit, the FWS will consider all comments received on
    amending the falconry regulation to create a new class of falconry
    permits for schools.
        Question. In addition to the Champion lands, what other parcels are
    available for acquisition within the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife
    Refuge and what is the total acquisition cost of those parcels?
        Answer. In addition to the Champion lands, which totals 26,000
    acres, the following acquisition opportunities have been identified for
    fiscal year 2000. These tracts total 3,298 acres, with an estimated
    cost of $3,200,000. (Note. Two of these projects--Mt. Tom and Dead
    Man's Swamp--which total some $1.4 million are within the Silvio O.
    Conte NWR boundaries but are too far south to be considered within the
    planning areas of the Administration's ``Northern Forest'' focus area).
        Nulhegan Basin, Vermont (Est. $545,500).--Opportunities exist to
    protect approximately 421 acres of inholdings within the special focus
    area (LAPS rank 45). The FWS also estimates that willing sellers of
    eight of the cabins located in the 26,000 acre acquisition proposed
    will be identified.
        Connecticut River mainstream, Vermont (Est. $375,000).--Within this
    special focus area, there are opportunities to protect approximately
    400 acres of Spruce-fir-tamarack swamp, 100 acres of Cedar swamp, and
    300 acres of flood plain forest with sites with good possibilities for
    restoration (LAPS rank 43).
        White River, Vermont (Est. $300,000).--Opportunities exist to
    protect approximately 400 acres of known and restorable sites in flood
    plain communities within this special focus area, including flood plain
    forest, calcareous riverside seeps, river shore sand and gravel, and
    riverside grasslands (LAPS rank 39).
        Connecticut River Macrosite, Vermont (Est. $20,000).--This special
    focus area includes an estimated 40 acres of riverside outcrops and
    grasslands which support populations of the federally endangered
    Jesup's milk vetch (LAPS rank 38).
        Williams River, Vermont (Est.$15,000).--Approximately 50 acres of
    marsh have been identified for protection in this special focus area
    (LAPS rank 37).
        West River, Vermont (Est. $537,500).--There are several acquisition
    opportunities within this special focus area. Approximately 100 acres
    of wetlands and associated upland buffer have been identified that
    support the federally endangered northeastern bulrush. Another 50 acres
    of flood plain and cobble shores are suitable for restoration. An
    additional 900 acres of dry oak forests, red pine forests, and pitch
    pine-oak-heath rocky summit communities could also be protected (LAPS
    rank 35).
        Mt. Tom, Massachusetts (Est. $352,000).--The special focus area
    hosts 32 species rare in the watershed, including 18 rare plants, seven
    rare amphibians and reptiles, three rare invertebrates and four rare
    bird species. Development pressures are real and increasing. A
    coalition of local groups is working on a permanent protection
    initiative. The Refuge contribution to this would be purchase of a
    conservation easement on a 252 acre parcel (LAPS rank 24).
        Dead Mans Swamp, Connecticut (Est. $1,055,000).--This special focus
    area in Cromwell, Connecticut, consists of freshwater marsh, flood
    plain forest and an accreting sand spit along the river. Many species
    of wading birds and waterfowl use the marsh while the flood plain
    forest provides migratory bird stopover and nesting habitat. Several
    rare bird species including the sora rail, black rail, least bittern,
    American bittern, piedbilled grebe, and yellow-breasted chat have been
    found at this site. The accreting spit hosts over \1/3\ of the adults
    of the Connecticut meta-population of Puritan tiger beetles, a
    federally threatened species. The three priority parcels contain
    approximately 285 acres. The FWS is already assisting one nearby
    landowner with a habitat enhancement project (LAPS rank 10a).
        Question. On April 9, 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service released
    the draft Indiana Bat Revised Recovery Plan for comment. After the
    comment period is closed, how long does the FWS expect before a final
    Revised Recovery Plan is released?
        Answer. The time to complete the recovery plan is largely dependent
    on the number and significance of comments received, if a public
    hearing is requested, and the extent of changes that the recovery team
    will need to make to the plan. Since the comment period is still open,
    the FWS can not accurately predict how long this process will take.
    However, a reasonable estimate would be 12 to 24 months after the close
    of the comment period on June 8, 1999.
        Question. The Department requested a $2 million increase for the
    Partners for Wildlife Program in fiscal year 2000. How will the Fish
    and Wildlife Service distribute this increase if it is included? Will
    the Fish and Wildlife Service give any preference for those areas that
    do not have a large refuge land presence and instead rely on the
    conservation of private lands for habitat restoration? What is the
    current allocation of Partners for Wildlife funding?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2000, the FWS has requested an additional
    $2,047,000 for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to increase
    the number and quality of habitat restoration projects for migratory
    birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional fish, threatened and
    endangered species, and other federal trust species. A portion of these
    funds is targeted to three geographically-based, cross-program
    initiatives: Mississippi River Basin Partnership ($370,000); the High
    Plains Partnership ($400,000); and the Restoring Habitat and Passage
    for Native Fish ($525,000). These funds will be distributed as follows:
      --Mississippi River Basin Partnership: Allocations will be
            distributed based on (1) information received from the Regions
            on project opportunities in high priority ecosystems within the
            Basin, and (2) the Regions' capabilities (i.e., past
            accomplishments, waiting list, and partnerships) to implement
            projects in a timely manner.
      --High Plains Partnership: The FWS assumes that projects will be
            implemented in all 10 High Plains States (MT, ND, SD, WY, NE,
            KS, CO, NM, OK, and TX). The amounts allocated will be based on
            (1) information received from the Regions regarding resource
            (species and habitat) priorities within the High Plains and
            project opportunities available to address those priorities,
            and (2) the Regions' capabilities (i.e., past accomplishments,
            waiting list, and partnerships) to implement projects in a
            timely manner.
      --Restoring Habitat and Passage for Native Fish: In planning this
            fiscal year 2000 budget initiative, the FWS ranked proposed
            projects on the following selection criteria: ability to result
            in measurable on-the-ground results, cost-effectiveness, cross-
            program coordination, prompt implementation and completion,
            partnerships (i.e., financial and technical), and the
            interdisciplinary approach to habitat restoration and watershed
            health. The projects that were selected are: Blitzen River
            (OR), Arkansas-Red Rivers Watershed (OK, KS, TX), Western Lake
            Erie Wetlands (OH), Tar-Neuse-Roanoke Ecosystem (NC, SC, GA),
            Lamprey river (NH), Upper Columbia River Basin (MT, WY), and
            Chester Creek (AK). The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
            will support the following projects: Blitzen River ($168,000);
            Arkansas-Red Rivers Watershed ($84,000); Western Lake Erie
            ($113,000); and Upper Columbia River Basin ($160,000).
        The FWS also requests an additional $1,008,000 to accommodate the
    backlog of landowners waiting to participate in the Partners for Fish
    and Wildlife Program. Of this general increase, $1 million will be
    allocated to Regions based on their capabilities (i.e., past
    accomplishments), commitment (i.e., waiting list and partnerships), and
    need (i.e., high priority habitats with restoration potential). The
    remaining $8,000 will be used in Region 1 for the removal of barriers
    to fish passage in support of the President's Pacific Northwest Forest
    Plan.
        No specific preference is given to areas with or without a high
    refuge land presence. Rather funding is allocated based on several
    factors, including federal trust species needs and priorities; the
    ability to provide ecologically-sound, cost-effective, and demonstrable
    benefits on the ground; and partnership involvement.
        A following table shows the fiscal year 1999 allocations made by
    the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Region
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        1            2            3            4            5            6            7
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technical Assistance.........................................     $441,000     $264,000     $965,000     $811,000     $411,000     $812,000      $10,000
    Habitat Restoration..........................................    1,513,000    1,193,000    2,860,732    2,180,000    1,351,000    2,571,500      159,000
    Private Landowner Assist.....................................       21,800       17,200       41,000       31,300       19,400       37,100        2,200
    Fishery Habitat Restoration..................................       57,600       45,500      108,800       82,800       51,300       98,100        5,900
    Clean Water/Watershed........................................      388,000      388,000      388,000      388,000      388,000      388,000      312,000
    WA State Ecosystem...........................................    1,483,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Klamath River................................................    1,225,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    WA Salmon Enhancement........................................    1,050,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Nevada Biodiversity..........................................    1,000,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Hawaii ESA Conservation......................................      250,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Vermont Partners.............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      150,000  ...........  ...........
    Alligator Snapping Turtle....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........      100,000  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Missouri Chutes/Sandhills....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       64,000  ...........
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals.................................................    7,429,400    1,907,700    4,363,532    3,593,100    2,370,700    3,970,700      489,100
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service requested a $135,000
    increase for the operations budget of the Silvio O. Conte National
    Wildlife Refuge to implement wildlife and habitat surveys. Given the
    public interest and sheer size of the land acquisition, there will be a
    high expectation for a Fish and Wildlife Service presence and
    management of the land. In addition, with the large number of
    inholdings and roads throughout the area, safety will be a concern.
    Will $135,000 be adequate to manage the 26,000 acres of land when the
    Fish and Wildlife Service takes ownership this year?
        Answer. Yes. In addition to the requested $135,000 operational
    increase, the station has committed $50,000 of its base funds for
    operation of the Nulhegan Basin Division of the Silvio O. Conte NFWR.
    Additional funds will be available from the FWS's TEA 21 highway
    program and refuge maintenance program. These funds would allow
    initiation of inventory and planning programs and provide for
    administration of the funds allocated for road and bridge maintenance.
        With the official opening of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller
    National Historical Park, visitor traffic through the Park facilities
    will significantly increase, exposing the buildings, exhibits, and over
    500 pieces of artwork to increase risk from fire. When the Park Service
    assumed responsibility for these facilities an evaluation of the fire
    and security systems recommended an immediate upgrade of the fire
    detection and suppression system. Currently, the only sprinkler system
    on the property is in the basement of the Billings Mansion. Although
    the Committee urged the Park Service to address this problem in the
    fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill, Marsh-Billings did not
    receive funding for this project out of the fiscal year 1999 repair and
    rehabilitation budget.
        Question. Why was Marsh-Billings not selected for funding and will
    they receive funding to make these repairs in the fiscal year 2000
    budget?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Repair and
    Rehabilitation program addresses the highest priority health and safety
    projects identified and ranked as part of the Department's Five Year
    Plan. While this project has merit, only the highest priority projects
    were selected for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funding.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
        Question. Many of Nevada's rural counties are limited in their
    ability to fund essential services due to an overwhelming dominance of
    Federal land ownership and resulting inadequate tax base. Yet, funding
    for Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) is projected at the same level as
    1999. Why was no increase in PILT planned?
        Answer. The Administration has consistently submitted what it
    considers to be good faith budget requests for the PILT program within
    the constraints imposed by discretionary funding caps. That support is
    reflected in a funding increase of nearly 25 percent from
    implementation of the amended PILT Act in 1995 to the present budget
    request. That level of increase is greater than many of the programs
    for which the Department is responsible, among them remediation of
    hazardous waste sites, management of cultural and historic resources on
    the public lands, and various on-the-ground management improvements.
        The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for PILT is $125 million, the
    same as the amount agreed to by the House and Senate in passing the
    Department's 1999 appropriation. In addition to PILT, other program
    revenues are paid directly to States and counties for their use.
    Moreover, the Administration is proposing a program to stabilize at a
    predictable and high level payments to counties and States in which
    harvest of timber on Federal land takes place. This proposal will
    complement other cooperative arrangements involving State and local
    government that are included in the Lands Legacy initiative.
        Question. Will PILT be considered as part of the Land Legacy
    Initiative to offset the impacts of land acquisition by the Federal
    Government?
        Answer. Under the fiscal year 2000 President's budget proposal
    submitted to the Congress, there was no permanent funding authority
    included as part of the Land Legacy Initiative for PILT. However, any
    ``entitlement land'' acquisitions made by the Federal government
    pursuant to the Land Legacy Initiative may qualify the affected local
    units for possible payments or additional payments under PILT.
        Question. Last year, the Bureau of Land Management faced a
    significant workload in order to review existing grazing permits for
    environmental adequacy. This year, I have heard similar concerns from
    constituents. Is the agency making progress in reducing the backlog?
    Will the $2.5 million included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request
    for the BLM result in elimination of the backlog?
        Answer. The backlog in renewing grazing permits or leases is 4,120.
    By the end of March 1999, the BLM has completed required reviews on
    1,244 permits and leases. The rate of completion is accelerating as the
    Field Office staffs are now fully engaged in this priority work; we
    expect the rate of completion to continue to increase throughout fiscal
    year 1999. The workload in permit renewal reviews for fiscal year 2000
    is 2,241.
        The proposed increase of $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2000
    President's Budget, when combined with existing BLM resources, will
    provide sufficient resources to compile the data necessary to complete
    the environmental reviews of the balance of permits expiring in fiscal
    year 1999 and those expiring in fiscal year 2000. The BLM expects to
    have the backlog completed by the end of the fiscal year 2000 and be
    able to keep pace with expiring permits in 2001 and beyond.
        Great Basin National Park continues to suffer from inadequate
    employee housing, and the temporary solution of renting room from a
    local truck-stop/casino has been unsatisfactory for all involved. I
    understand some funding targeted for the construction of replacement
    housing at the park has been held up pending completion of a
    Servicewide housing needs assessment.
        Question. When will this assessment be completed and funds made
    available to Great Basin National Park?
        Answer. The Needs Assessment contract identified a need for housing
    16 seasonal employees, supporting at least the need to replace existing
    NPS trailers with housing for up to 8 seasonal employees. If the Park
    were also no longer to lease additional units from the private sector
    (an alternative not yet decided upon), then the need for housing would
    be increased to accommodate all 16 seasonal employees as identified by
    the contracted study.
        However, the NPS is still completing additional Congressional
    requirements prior to resuming the trailer replacement construction
    program. As indicated to the House Appropriations Subcommittee, the NPS
    will complete its Servicewide Housing Needs Assessment and report back
    to both the House and Senate Committees before resuming any housing
    construction. The report is anticipated by July of this year.
        Great Basin NP is scheduled to begin planning to replace the NPS
    trailers with previously appropriated housing funds, after approval
    from the Appropriations Committees is obtained. Once this design is
    completed, and final prioritization of all Service-wide trailer
    replacement projects is determined, construction funds would then be
    made available. Prior to any on-site construction, the NPS will explore
    all feasible alternatives, and will select the appropriate mix of
    housing for the seasonal employee needs of the park.
        Question. Can I anticipate funding adequate to meet the needs of
    the Park?
        Answer. The current proposed project at Great Basin National Park
    is for the replacement of 4 NPS trailers for 8 seasonal employees,
    consistent with the findings of the contracted Housing Needs
    Assessment. Dependent upon Servicewide priority and funding
    availability, this project may be scheduled for funding in fiscal year
    2000.
        The proposed funding for trailer replacement from the housing
    initiative may not meet the total housing needs of the park as it does
    not take into consideration the units which the park is currently
    leasing from the private sector. If the NPS were to discontinue its
    current leasing practice, the potential need increases to 16
    seasonalemployee bedrooms.
        Question. Over 50 percent of the proposed increase for funding in
    the Wild Horse and Burro program ($600,000 out of a total proposed
    increase of just under $1.1 million) is targeted for burro management
    in the California desert. Assuming that the increased funding request
    must also cover increases in fixed costs, what sort of progress can I
    expect toward meeting program goals in Nevada, which supports the
    greatest population of wild horses?
        Answer. BLM continues to focus on the Wild Horse and Burro (WH&B)
    program in Nevada. Over 46 percent of the total animals to be removed
    in fiscal year 1999 will come from Nevada. Over 32 percent
    (approximately $5,000,000) of the available funds are being spent
    directly and indirectly to support Nevada's WH&B program. BLM will
    continue to place emphasis on the Nevada WH&B program now and in the
    future.
        Nevada BLM continues to make progress evaluating Herd Management
    Areas (HMA) and issuing decisions establishing Appropriate Management
    Levels (AML). Nevada BLM plans to establish AML through monitoring and
    evaluation on all HMAs by fiscal year 2001, thereby enabling BLM to
    remove excess animals from all HMAs. Another area of emphasis that BLM
    initiated in fiscal year 1999 and will continue into fiscal year 2000
    is the broad based field studies of the immuno-contraceptive vaccine.
    BLM vaccinated 761 mares this past winter with the one shot vaccine
    that prevents the mares from foaling for one year. In fiscal year 2000,
    BLM will concentrate broad based field studies of the immuno-
    contraceptive vaccine in Nevada by vaccinating 1,500 to 2,000 mares.
    BLM anticipates that the one shot, two year vaccine will be available
    for these field studies. Wide-spread application will be dependent on
    available fiscal year 2000 funding.
        Despite the emphasis BLM is placing in Nevada on establishing AML,
    use of immuno-contraceptive vaccine, and population control through
    removals the effort is inadequate at reducing the populations. In fact,
    at the current recruitment rate, removal rate, and adoption rate, the
    number of HMAs that are at AML will decrease as populations increase on
    the range. Though faced with significant challenges in Nevada, BLM is
    optimistic about the potential of immuno-contraception as a mechanism
    for helping to control wild horse populations and reach Appropriate
    Management Level in the long term.
        Question. Appropriations language for fiscal year 1999 for the
    Bureau of Land Management directed $50,000 for the protection of the
    Sloan Petroglyphs in BLM's Las Vegas District. What progress has been
    made by the BLM in protecting these resources?
        Answer. Under contract with the Harry Reid Center at the University
    of Nevada-Las Vegas, the BLM has recorded all rock art images at the
    Sloan Petroglyphs site. This two-phase inventory effort resulted in the
    meticulous recordation and mapping of over 1,700 rock art images, which
    now constitutes the largest and most detailed petroglyph site record in
    Nevada. BLM has also entered into a site stewardship agreement with the
    Harry Reid Center for the monitoring by volunteers of the Sloan Canyon
    area. In addition, the BLM has initiated regular weekend patrols of the
    canyon by BLM Law Enforcement Rangers. The BLM's Las Vegas Field Office
    is now preparing a contract for the development of a Cultural Resource
    Management Plan to guide development of on-site and off-site management
    prescriptions for Sloan Canyon. These plans will be compatible with the
    Wilderness Study Area Interim Management Plan guidelines that currently
    exist for this area. The contract will be awarded later this summer,
    and work is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2000.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                     mandan on-a-slant and lewis and clark
        This leads to the question of how the Park Service and others are
    planning to tell the story of a critical part of the success of the
    Lewis and Clark voyage--the role of Native Americans.
        Question. What steps are you taking to ensure participation of
    Native Americans in Lewis and Clark activities, including
    interpretation of the voyage from the native viewpoint?
        Answer. The National Park Service has an on going dialogue with
    Native American Indian Tribes regarding the Lewis and Clark National
    Historic Trail and the telling of the interpretive story relating to
    the trail. Specifically, the NPS is leading a Department of the
    Interior initiative to conduct government to government ``listening
    sessions'' with all Native American Indian Tribes associated with the
    Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. These meetings are intended to
    provide the NPS with specific input from Native American Indian Tribes
    regarding the telling of the Lewis and Clark story.
        The Three Affiliated Tribes of Ft. Berthold (Mandan, Hidatsa and
    Arikara) have a museum on their reservation.
        Question. What kinds of assistance would be available to ensure
    that this facility is ready for Lewis and Clark activities?
        Answer. The NPS entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Three
    Affiliated Tribes in 1998 to begin a planning process for the Lewis and
    Clark Bicentennial. Through the Challenge Cost Share program, the NPS
    provided the Three Affiliated Tribes with funding for basic planning.
    The NPS will continue to provide assistance to the Three Affiliated
    Tribes for Lewis and Clark projects through the Challenge Cost Share
    program as Lewis and Clark related projects are developed and proposed.
                    lewis and clark national historic trail
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the National Historic
    Trails program includes $1.174 million for the Lewis and Clark National
    Historic Trail--an increase of $300,000 over fiscal year 1999. North
    Dakota received a portion of these funds. These funds would augment
    existing agreements by which sites along with the Lewis and Clark route
    are operated, to ensure that additional staff for coordination of
    bicentennial activities, media liaison, and technical assistance to
    federal, state, local, and private interests.
        I can't stress strongly enough the importance of these partnership
    agreements--especially their continuation and enhanced funding. Again,
    these are relatively small dollar activities which provide great
    leverage in obtaining state, local, and private funds.
        Question. Can you provide me with a breakout of how these
    additional funds would be specifically used if appropriated by
    Congress?
        Answer. A portion of the additional $300,000 for fiscal year 2000
    will be used for partnership agreements ($140,000). Funding the
    greatest number of requests possible will require that the available
    funds be distributed proportionately to ensure the best and widest use
    of the funds. The remainder of the additional request for fiscal year
    2000 ($160,000) will be used to support two positions for planning and
    technical assistance. These funds will enable us to provide technical
    assistance to Federal, state, and other interests that are developing
    major visitor and interpretive facilities and programs focusing on the
    expedition.
        Question. What activities are planned for North Dakota sites with
    these added funds?
        Answer. In North Dakota, the three affiliated tribes were
    instrumental in the success of the Lewis and Clark expedition. In
    recent meetings with American Indians in the Pacific Northwest,
    Intermountain Area and Great Plains (at New Town, North Dakota), it was
    found that assistance is needed in developing their existing and
    proposed cultural heritage centers, museums, and interpretive programs.
    In part, the requested technical assistance positions will be used to
    assist American Indian endeavors in North Dakota, as elsewhere.
        A request was made of the Associate Regional Director of Cultural
    Resource Stewardship and Partnerships in the Midwest Region earlier
    this year to increase the funding level of the North Dakota Lewis and
    Clark Bicentennial to $70,000 per year from $35,000.
        Question. Can you tell us the status of that request?
        Answer. NPS has been able to partially meet the request. A
    cooperative agreement modification with the North Dakota Lewis and
    Clark Bicentennial Foundation dated February, 1999, obligates $35,000
    for general support (public outreach, resource monitoring, volunteer
    support); plus $22,000 for two challenge cost-share projects to develop
    a living history program at Fort Mandan and develop four interpretive
    displays on Lewis and Clark animals at the zoo in Bismarck.
                      lewis and clark bicentennial project
        Three of the ten sites in the NPS Bicentennial project are in North
    Dakota and are slated for budget increases in the fiscal year 2000
    budget:

    Fort Union Trading Post.......................................   $84,000
    Knife River Indian Village....................................    97,000
    Theodore Roosevelt National Park..............................   135,000

        These additional funds respond to expected and actual increases in
    visitation (it's already up 45 percent at Knife River over the previous
    year), increased maintenance needs (many buildings at Fort Union need
    work), and the need for more staff and interpretation and planning.
    Apparently, the bulk of the increase indicated for Theodore Roosevelt
    National Park ($115,000 of the $135,000), however, is intended to pay
    for the position of a Lewis and Clark coordinator who most likely will
    not even be located in North Dakota.
        Question. Is this accurate?
        Answer. Yes. This position will primarily be a liaison to Federal,
    State, tribal, and local partners, and needs to be located near good
    air transportation access to many points along the Trail. It may also
    play a key role in carrying out the NPS plans to conduct the Corps of
    Discovery II for the Bicentennial.
        The Corps of Discovery II is a traveling classroom/exhibit that
    will travel across the country following the Lewis and Clark journals.
    It will be a combination of mobile museum exhibits and live
    interpretations. In addition, Internet sites, distance learning
    technologies, and onsite research will be used to tell the story of the
    expedition. This will all be accomplished in partnership with other
    Federal and State agencies and with local communities and Native
    American groups.
        Question. If so, do you know at this time where this individual
    will be located?
        Answer. The Lewis and Clark bicentennial project will staff a
    coordinator/liaison person for the entire bicentennial project, and
    there will be a superintendent of the Corps of Discovery II Project.
    The coordinator/liaison position will most likely be located in Omaha.
    At this time, the NPS is not sure where the superintendent of the Corps
    of Discovery will be located.
        With the importance of the pending Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
    Commemoration, and the need to have the current staff located more
    centrally on the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Midwest Region has split
    out the Lewis and Clark Trail Office from the Ice Age Trail Office
    located in Madison, Wisconsin and co-located it with our central office
    in Omaha. The Omaha location is central along the Lewis and Clark Route
    stretching from Washington D.C. to the Oregon/Washington Coast. It was
    economically the least expensive means of providing administrative and
    technical support to the office; offers good airline accessibility as
    well as proximity to large population areas from Sioux City to Kansas
    City.
        At present we are formulating how best to address the needs of
    trail management and preparing for a major interpretive effort in the
    proposed Corps of Discovery II, 200 Years to the Future. The location
    of the coordinator has not been determined. It is, however, anticipated
    that this individual will travel extensively addressing Trail issues
    from coast to coast along the entire Lewis and Clark Route.
                leafy spurge at theodore roosevelt national park
        At the same time, a real and urgent need exists at Teddy
    Roosevelt--the need to combat the exotic, non-native and invasive plant
    known as leafy spurge. The Department understands the need for funds to
    combat this plant. I understand that you originally requested $285,000
    for this purpose but that you ultimately lost this battle. In response
    to a question for the record from last year's hearing before this
    subcommittee, you indicated the unmet funding need of $275,000 for this
    same purpose. Leafy spurge was introduced to the North Great Plains in
    the early part of this century. It is discovered in the Theodore
    Roosevelt National Park in 1968 and, by 1970, covered 32 acres. Left
    unchecked, leafy spurge doubles its coverage every ten years. Today it
    has spread to more than 4,000 acres--over 10 percent--of the south unit
    of the park. Park employees have heroically combated this plant on an
    ad hoc basis using the few funds the director and others are able to
    scrape together from savings in other area. But they need a strong and
    effective federal response to stop the spread of this plant, which is
    devouring habitat for the bison, elk, wild horses, and other large
    animals in the park.
        Question. Are there not additional resources you can find to combat
    this invasive and destructive plant?
        Answer. The park continues to dedicate resources to this effort
    within available funds. Given funding constraints, a park base
    operating increase is not being requested for this effort, though the
    park is taking advantage of a partnership with the Department of
    Agriculture in its five year effort to fight leafy spurge within the
    entire Little Missouri River watershed.
        Question. Will you work with me and this subcommittee to identify
    some added resources, which we could use to fight this battle?
        Answer. Issues such as the invasive species problems at Theodore
    Roosevelt National Parks and other parks in the system are part of the
    genesis behind the Service's Natural Resource Initiative, as presented
    in the fiscal year 2000 President's Request. All resource issues in the
    NPS would not be solved immediately as a result of this initiative, but
    rather be addressed over time as budgetary allowances and priorities
    dictate. We continue to explore all possibilities. For example, in
    fiscal year 1997, the U.S. Congress provided a total of $4.8 million
    over five years to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
    Research Service in Sydney, Montana to fight leafy spurge within the
    entire Little Missouri River Watershed that covers a four state area.
    Theodore Roosevelt National Park is one of many partners in the team
    that is attacking leafy spurge on a coordinated, biologically-based
    Integrated Pest Management Program. Some of these funds are going
    directly to the park to help their efforts. It is important to attack
    exotic species on an areawide effort, as the one described above. We
    are extremely interested in developing more partnerships between
    Departments and other agencies if this could be useful in addressing
    the problem.
                      fish and wildlife service--easements
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has for many years actively
    pursued the purchase of wetlands easements within the State of North
    Dakota. During this time, there has been a continuing frustration with
    the lack of flexibility that wetlands easements offered. Most recently,
    there have been lawsuits filed in the state by producers who had
    easements on their land. The result of these lawsuits established that
    the FWS had overextended its interpretation of its easement authority.
        Question. What is the USFWS currently doing to develop a more
    flexible policy on wetlands easement purchases?
        Answer. The FWS is complying with the court order to map all North
    Dakota wetland easements upon request of the landowner, as well as any
    wetland easement where there is a potential easement violation.
        Question. Will you have adequate funding to meet these needs?
        Answer. The FWS is using available funds to respond to the court
    order. The amount available for mapping wetland easements has resulted
    in an extensive backlog of landowner requests and an inability to
    adequately respond to their needs. The FWS is attempting to prioritize
    these requests to the greatest extent possible.
                    fish and wildlife service--birding guide
        The Fish and Wildlife Service continues to develop its refuge
    resources in ND making it one of the pre-eminent wildlife areas in the
    country. North Dakota is also one of the nation's top birding states.
    The fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill authorized the
    Service to create a Birding Guide to North Dakota.
        Question. What is status of the creation of this guide?
        Answer. The FWS's Bismarck, ND office is working with your staff to
    determine exactly what type of guide is most appropriate. The existing
    ``North Dakota Wildlife Viewing Guide'' is being reviewed for potential
    updating and reprinting. The FWS has worked with the State and others
    to put the guide together and make distribution throughout the state.
        Question. What are the FWS's plans to use the guide to help promote
    ND's refuge system?
        Answer. Additional copies of the existing ``North Dakota Wildlife
    Viewing Guide'' as revised will be provided to all North Dakota refuges
    as well as appropriate visitor centers and contact points throughout
    the State. This should provide birding information about North Dakota
    refuges to the visiting public and therefore promote the Refuge System.
                           payments in lieu of taxes
        For many years, there has been a growing concern about the PILT
    funds which various local entities receive from the Federal government.
    I have strongly supported increasing those payments.
        Question. What is the percentage of payment in North Dakota in
    relationship to the actual taxes that would have been paid on that
    land?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1998 PILT payment to counties in North
    Dakota totaled approximately $594,359. The BLM does not collect data or
    make estimates on the level of property taxes that would have been
    collected on these lands if they were not in Federal ownership.
        Question. What is your plan for future budget requests?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior fully understands that PILT
    payments are an important source of income for many counties, as are
    other revenue sharing programs. However, an increase for PILT was not
    included in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the
    Department would not support additional funding for PILT at the expense
    of BLM operating funds or other Administration priorities. Increased
    funding for BLM operations supports programs that provide significant
    services, resources, and tangible benefits to the public. Federal
    payments to counties and States supplement those benefits in supporting
    the health of local economies. The Administration will continue to
    submit budget requests that promote resources and services derived from
    the public lands, and will likewise continue to support the PILT
    program.
                     tribally controlled community colleges
        I want to commend you and the Administration for the increase that
    has been recommended for the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges. As
    you are well aware, the colleges depend on funding from the BIA for
    their core operations which is crucial to maintaining accreditation. I
    am convinced that education is the key to improving living conditions
    and providing employment opportunities on our reservations, and I have
    personally witnessed how the tribal colleges have literally turned
    around the lives of many of the students. I appreciate the support and
    recognition of the Administration for the Tribal Colleges and I hope
    the Subcommittee can meet the level you have suggested.
        Mr. Secretary, you may recall that in this Subcommittee's fiscal
    year 1999 report, we requested that you review the current needs of all
    major post-secondary schools serving primarily American Indian students
    and recommend plans for improving their facilities. We had also asked
    that the review include cost estimates and a reasonable federal share
    for meeting these costs for tribally controlled community colleges and
    other vocational and art education institutions. Just from my own
    personal experience, I know that the facilities' needs at the tribal
    colleges are great, and it is extremely important that your report
    include a substantive and comprehensive analysis that can be used as
    the basis for developing a strategy for funding these facilities
    nationwide.
        Question. Can you provide the Subcommittee with a status report on
    the review we requested? I urge you to submit the review as soon as
    possible so that we can consider it as part of the fiscal year 2000
    budget deliberations.
        Answer. The Bureau's Facilities Management and Construction Center
    (FMCC) and the Office of Indian Education Programs are developing a
    survey instrument to obtain cost estimates for the facilities
    construction needs for each of the TCCCs, the Crownpoint Vocational
    Technical Institute, and the United Tribes Technical College. The
    survey is expected to be sent to the institutions by the end of June,
    1999, with final responses received by August. At this time, FMCC will
    formalize the data and submit a report to the Committees on its
    findings.
                            bia school construction
        I am certain you would agree with me that our first priority on
    school replacement should be addressing the needs of the schools that
    need help the most, regardless of the financial wherewithal of the
    tribe.
        Question. Are you and the Department committed to working with me
    and the Congress to arrive at a funding mechanism--whether it be
    through bonds or otherwise--to fully meet the repair and replacement
    needs of our most derelict schools?
        Answer. The Department is committed to working with you and the
    Committee to reach a resolve to remedy the repair and improvement needs
    of the schools in Indian Country so that our Indian students do not
    have to attend schools or other educational facilities with conditions
    rivaling those found in Third World countries.
        Question. If Congress and the Administration are ultimately unable
    to develop a workable bonding initiative for BIA-funded schools--and I
    am not assuming that this will be the case--is it the Administration's
    intention that the $30 million included in your budget for defeasing
    the principle on bonds should be used to otherwise repair and replace
    BIA schools?
        Answer. In the event that the Bonding Initiative was not enacted
    but the $30 million was appropriated, these discretionary funds could
    be utilized for high priority Bureau School Replacement construction
    and FI&R projects.
        Question. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request
    actually recommends a decrease in the line-item for repair (Facilities
    Improvement and Repair) of BIA schools from $40 million in fiscal year
    1999 to $36 million in fiscal year 2000. Given the $754 million repair
    backlog why did you propose a decrease in this area?
        Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 request for education
    construction funding is the highest since 1992. Quite often, replacing
    a school is a more cost effective measure than FI&R. The replacement of
    the Seba Dalkai and Fond du Lac schools will produce a reduction in the
    maintenance backlog, because those costs are foregone by replacement.
        Also, the $30 million requested in the President's Budget for the
    bonding initiative would result in a significant reduction in the
    maintenance backlog overall. Current budgetary limitations on
    appropriations preclude a major infusion of funds due to the existing
    and competing overwhelming needs and requirements on a Bureau-wide
    basis. Ideally, if new construction is possible to reduce the backlog,
    it will have a corresponding reduction on FI&R needs.
        Question. The March 29, 1999 Federal Register request that BIA-
    funded schools needing to be replaced submit an application by July 16
    in order to be placed on a new priority ranking list. How many schools
    does the BIA plan to place on this new priority list? Will all schools
    needing replacement be placed on this list? Will you be sending to
    Congress a specific plan for funding the constructio n projects placed
    on this new list?
        Answer. The Bureau plans on adding approximately 15 schools to the
    existing list of 4 unfunded replacement schools. This will result in
    the publication in the Federal Register of a fiscal year 2000 priority
    list consisting of 19 schools; this plan assumes full funding for Seba
    Dalkai School and Fond du Lac School as requested in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget.
        All schools needing replacement will not be placed on the priority
    list that will be published in the Federal Register. The primary reason
    is that the physical condition of buildings, demographic and enrollment
    conditions at schools are likely to change while awaiting
    appropriations for the 19 schools planned for inclusion on the list.
    Because of these changing conditions, the Bureau feels schools not on
    the list should be given the opportunity to re-compete based on the
    conditions of the schools at the time new applications are re-solicited
    by the Bureau. The Bureau plans on providing the Congress with the
    prioritized list of all schools needing replacement. This list,
    however, will not constitute the Bureau's official list for funding
    purposes; the list published in the Federal Register will serve this
    purpose.
        The schools on the published priority list will be included in the
    Bureau's Five-Year Deferred Maintenance Plan. All 19 schools on the
    list may or may not be included in the Five-Year Plan; inclusion will
    depend on anticipated out-year funding levels for education facilities
    construction.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. I am pleased to see that the Department's budget includes
    $36 million to acquire over 437,000 acres of inholdings in the
    California Desert. Can you comment on the importance of this
    acquisition, and why the funding should be appropriated this year?
        Answer. The Wilderness Conservancy, utilizing private funds, will
    contribute a total of $25.5 million ($20.5 million in cash and $5.0
    million in donated land) to be matched by $36.0 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund, requested by the President in the fiscal
    year 2000 budget request. In total, 487,000 acres of land in the
    California Desert will be transferred to the BLM and NPS for protection
    and management. The urgency of this request rests in the increasing
    pressures that jeopardize the integrity of the resources of this unique
    region, some of which is critical habitat for threatened and endangered
    species. There is concern that the proximity of certain in-holdings to
    rapidly expanding rural/semi-urban areas will result in further
    residential development, which is already occurring at a rapid pace in
    the Desert. Further, mineral development on many of the inholdings is
    on the rise, particularly where plans of operation exist and
    determinations for operations are favorable to the claimant. In both
    cases, road development to access private lands in support of these
    operations increases the threat to the Desert's natural and biological
    resources.
        The Wildlands Conservancy will donate to the National Park Service
    the former Catellus lands it acquired at Joshua Tree National Park. As
    part of the Department's $36.0 million budget request for the
    California Desert, the NPS fiscal year 2000 budget request for land
    acquisition includes $7.1 million to acquire the 86,425 acres of
    Catellus property located in Mojave National Preserve. BLM requests
    $28.9 million in its budget.
        The willingness of the Catellus Corporation to sell its inholdings
    at the low rate negotiated by the Wildlands Conservancy and the
    Department is based on the timely appropriation of the entire $36.0
    million requested in the President's budget. Postponement or delay of
    that appropriation could jeopardize the current agreementwith Catellus.
        Question. The Lands Legacy Initiative proposes funding for many
    worthy programs, but I have heard concerns that the Administration is
    proposing funding for activities not authorized by the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Why has the Administration proposed
    splitting up the LWCF amon g so many different programs?
        Answer. The President's budget recognizes that several existing
    authorized programs in the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture,
    and Commerce serve conservation purposes similar in nature to those
    currently funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
    proposes to fund them out of OCS receipts deposited to the Fund.
    Moreover, the Administration's view is that the expertise of these
    agencies should be brought to bear to achieve the initiative's
    objectives.
        Accordingly, increased funding is provided for Interior,
    Agriculture, and NOAA, in addition to existing programs in a variety of
    other agencies. Together these programs provide a variety of tools that
    could be applied to the individual resource issues.
        A bill that I am sponsoring, as well as bills that Senator Landrieu
    and Senator Boxer are sponsoring, would provide significant new
    resources for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program.
        Question. Given the broad bipartisan support for reviving the UPARR
    program, why has the Administration chosen to request only $4 million
    for the program?
        Answer. It was envisioned that $4 million would stimulate
    resurgence in the updating and refocusing of urban park and recreation
    Recovery Action Programs (RAP) to identify open space and outdoor
    recreational opportunities. Information derived from the RAPs, plus the
    quantity and quality of the rehabilitation grant applications, may
    provide better justification for potential future funding.
        Question. What is the status of the Headwaters management plan?
    When will the Bureau of Land Management begin the planning process, and
    when will the process be completed?
        Answer. Since the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest, the public
    expectations and interest in the area have been high. The BLM has
    redirected funding to implement interim management guidelines and to
    provide for limited public access (immediate on-the-ground needs, such
    as access, barriers, and parking facilities) during the summer of 1999.
        BLM and the State of California will initiate a cooperative long-
    term management planning process in October 1999. This cooperative
    effort will include Federal, state, and local governments along with a
    broad spectrum of public interest groups. The management plan will be
    subject to formal review procedures, including public meetings,
    pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the California
    Environmental Quality Act and is expected to be completed in 2001.
        Question. BLM has announced that it will co-manage Headwaters with
    the State of California. How will this be coordinated?
        Answer. The BLM and the State of California have signed a
    Memorandum of Understanding to guide the future planning and management
    of the Headwaters Forest Reserve. The MOU assigns the BLM as the
    designated Federal manager of the Reserve and assigns the California
    Department of Fish and Game as the designated State lead for the
    Reserve. Together, both agencies will manage the Headwaters Forest for
    fish and wildlife habitat and other ecological values on a partnership
    basis on behalf of the citizens of the United States.
        Question. What is the status of the Pacific Lumber timber harvest
    plans that were grandfathered into Headwaters agreement? What is your
    understanding of the State's view on these THPs, and when will Pacific
    Lumber be able to implement these timber harvest plans?
        Answer. BLM's understanding is that the State of California's
    Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is working with the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of California Department of Fish
    and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Pacific Lumber on
    this issue. The State of California's Department of Forestry and Fire
    Protection is responsible for approving THPs on private lands. BLM is
    not involved in this issue and therefore is unable to provide
    additional information on the matter.
        Question. What are your plans to overhaul the records management
    system for Indian trust accounts?
        Answer. The plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Babbitt have requested that
    we produce all records (title reports, leases, probate orders, etc.)
    related to their individual trust accounts, including those of their
    predecessors dating to the original trust patents issued in the late
    1800's. Judge Lamberth ruled Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin and the
    Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs in contempt due to our failure to
    produce all trust fund documents for five named plaintiffs and their
    predecessors in interest. The judge assigned a Special Master, Mr. Alan
    Balaran, to oversee the discovery process and administer document
    production compliance with court orders and related matters. The costs
    to produce documents for the five named Plaintiffs and their
    predecessors in interest based on the Government's definition of
    predecessor is estimated to be $13 million. The definition of
    predecessor remains before the Special Master for decision. The
    Solicitor has advised that the definition advocated by the Plaintiffs
    would add thousands of individuals to the definition. If Plaintiffs
    prevail, the costs to produce these documents will increase by tens of
    millions.
        In accordance with the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform
    Act of 1994, the Special Trustee is charged with trust fund reform
    oversight. Mr. Thomas Thompson is currently serving as the Acting
    Special Trustee while the Administration conducts a search to fill the
    post permanently. In April 1997, the Special Trustee submitted his
    ``Strategic Plan to Implement the Reforms Required by the American
    Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994''. Notwithstanding the
    Secretary's reservations about certain aspects of the Strategic Plan,
    the Secretary and the Special Trustee agreed that selected trust system
    improvements and data clean up efforts in the Strategic Plan should
    proceed. The approach selected to implement the Secretary's decisions
    on portions of the Special Trustee's Strategic Plan is centered on 13
    major Sub Projects outlined in the Department of the Interior's High
    Level Implementation Plan. This Plan outlines the comprehensive,
    coordinated, inter-Bureau effort to correct the many well-documented
    problems associated with the Department's management of Indian trust
    funds. Implementation of this Plan will cost $136 million through
    fiscal year 2000.
        Presently, the Office of the Special Trustee and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs are developing and implementing two systems--the Trust
    Funds Accounting System and Trust Assets Account Management System--
    which will facilitate management of trust funds and trust land
    transactions. Records management considerations are being incorporated
    into the information system development. For example, all existing
    electronic information systems will have their data and documentation
    scheduled under the Federal Records Act requirements.
        In addition, the Secretary's High Level Implementation Plan
    contains a Records Management Sub Project to resolve Indian Affairs
    long standing records management weakness in the Bureau. The scope of
    the Sub Project includes Indian Affairs records policy, management,
    storage, access, control and disposition and electronic records-
    keeping, including imaging technology. The Sub Project was further
    refined based on a recent study of the Bureau and Office of Special
    Trustee's (OST) records management activities. The recommendations and
    actions to be taken to implement each of the recommendations that
    resulted from the study have been provided to the Subcommittee. While
    OST has requested $7.4 million in fiscal year 2000 to reform Indian
    Affairs records management, senior officials from the BIA, OST, and the
    Department will share in the responsibility of overseeing the reform
    efforts.
        Question. What is BIA doing to compensate the Native Americans
    whose trust accounts have been lost?
        Answer. In November, 1997, the Department submitted its
    recommendations for settlement of disputed Tribal trust fund accounts
    to the Congress. The recommendations were based on the Tribal
    Reconciliation Project, a five-year, $21 million study of Tribal
    accounts undertaken by Arthur Anderson, LLP under the supervision of
    the Department. The Department drafted legislation and, after a series
    of consultation meetings with Tribes, submitted the proposal to the
    Congress. The Administration's proposal envisioned immediate payment of
    known errors, a good faith settlement offer to all Tribes with trust
    accounts that did not accept the good faith settlement offer, and
    finally, litigation for those circumstances where a settlement could
    not be reached. It was introduced by Congressman Miller by request on
    April 30, 1998 (H.R. 3782). A joint hearing of the Senate Indian
    Affairs Committee and the House Resources Committee was held on the
    proposal on July 22, 1998. The Inter Tribal Monitoring Association
    (ITMA) offered its own proposal as well. The 105th Congress ended
    without the adoption of any Tribal settlement legislation. Departmental
    officials have met several times this year with ITMA representatives to
    discuss principles for a new consensus settlement bill. The Department
    invites active involvement of the Congress in developing Tribal Trust
    Funds settlement legislation.
        The administration of Individual Indian Monies accounts for
    individual Indians is the subject of the Cobell v. Babbitt et. al.
    litigation. While Plaintiffs in this lawsuit contend that they have
    claims for recovery of ``lost'' funds and/or for damages for alleged
    mismanagement of trust lands (or other assets), this lawsuit does not
    involve a claim for monetary relief. Lawsuits for such claims have yet
    to be filed.
        Question. How does the BIA propose the money from the Class Size
    Reduction program be distributed?
        Answer. The Bureau is working with the Department of Education
    (Department) on the distribution methodology for the Class Size
    Reduction program funds. The Department is currently requiring that
    these funds be distributed to schools based on enrollment and level of
    poverty. As BIA's 185 schools qualify for the free and reduced lunch
    program and as high poverty schools the Bureau is working with the
    Department to re-evaluate its distribution method.. In addition, the
    Bureau funds many schools with small enrollments due to the isolation
    and rural conditions where Bureau schools are located. If funds are
    distributed based on enrollment, the Bureau will have some schools
    receiving only $900, which is not sufficient to effect a reduction in
    class size. The Bureau is recommending that the funds be distributed
    equally to each school. This would result in each school receiving
    approximately $20,000 which in some locations is sufficient to hire a
    beginning teacher. The Bureau will continue to work with the Department
    on this issue.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
                           united states park police
        As Chairman of the Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee of the
    Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe it is important that Federal law
    enforcement activities receive appropriate funding and resources. As
    you know, vital services to Federal, state, and local law enforcement
    in the D.C. area are provided by the United States Park Police. Some of
    this assistance, including the essential Park Police Aviation Unit, is
    provided only by the Park Police.
        Question. Do you believe that the Park Police is an important
    aspect of Federal law enforcement and that its funding needs should be
    met?
        Answer. The NPS strongly supports the important mission of the
    United States Park Police and believes it to be an important aspect of
    Federal law enforcement. The Park Police are significantly represented
    in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget with a proposed operating
    increase of $2.661 million (excluding pay, pension, and other increased
    uncontrollable cost requests). This funding will be used to address
    training and staffing needs, support the Aviation Unit, and provide for
    communication enhancements. Park Police funding needs are included in
    the President's budget to the maximum extent possible within available
    funding allowances after being considered along with other priority NPS
    needs.
        Question. It is my understanding that, since 1996, the Park Police
    budget requests to the National Park Service have been cut
    considerably. Are you aware of the extent to which Park Police funding
    requests have not been approved by the Park Service?
        Answer. Since fiscal year 1996, all operational funding for the
    Park Police has risen by about $15 million (or 26.3 percent), from $57
    million in fiscal year 1996 to a requested $72 million in fiscal year
    2000. This change represents an 18.5 percent increase in constant
    dollars over this period. The emphasis the Service places on adequate
    funding for the Park Police is evidenced by the request in fiscal year
    2000: increases in operating funds for the Park Police total almost $4
    million, with the Park Police pension fund also slated for a $1.1
    million boost.
        The NPS, under the fiscal constraints facing all government
    agencies, has had to weigh Park Police needs against all other
    requirements. The Park Police funding requests are considered carefully
    within current funding constraints, and as priorities dictate, as set
    by the National Leadership Council of the NPS.
        Regarding upgrades to the communication system, funding in the
    fiscal year 2000 Construction and Major Maintenance Appropriation,
    Special Programs budget activity, has been earmarked to address the
    initial short-term needs for communications systems of the Park
    Police--preventative system maintenance, adjustment of telephone line
    interfaces, training of communications staff, analysis of the radio
    system, and initial narrowband conversion issues. The requested amount
    is $255,000 and is a portion of a larger $2.5 million Servicewide
    request for narrowband conversion.
        Question. I understand that the communications system of the Park
    Police is particularly dated and antiquated. What plans are being made
    to upgrade the communications system?
        Answer. The National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA) has directed the Department of the Interior to
    convert all of its current VHF frequencies to narrow band equipment,
    with all equipment to be converted before 2005. A recent study
    performed by the National Park Service Radio Managers and Office of
    Information Resource Management staff identified the following short-
    term USPP needs: improve the system's preventative maintenance; adjust
    telephone line interfaces and augment and better train communications
    staff; contract an engineering firm to analyze the radio system; and
    provide alternatives to correct cited problems including the conversion
    to narrowband operations and the availability of commercial services
    and leasing options. The cost of the initial short-term needs has been
    estimated at $255,000, and is part of the $2,500,000 included in the
    fiscal year 2000 Construction and Major Maintenance appropriation
    request.
        Long-term needs include implementing the results of the engineering
    study to include newer ``trunking'' technology and the increase of
    technical staff to include the New York and San Francisco Field
    Offices. The study further recommended installation/implementation of a
    Computer Aided Dispatch system to (1) improve Park Police response
    time, (2) allow for the automatic identification of callers, and (3)
    improve officer location information. The cost to implement the long-
    term needs is estimated at over $13 million and will be addressed
    through funding proposals over a number of years.
        Question. It appears that some Park Police districts and
    facilities, such as D-1 and Glen Echo Horsebarn, have particularly
    antiquated communications apparatus and are difficult to reach at times
    except through telephone. What is being done to improve the
    communications equipment for these facilities in particular?
        Answer. The NPS is concerned about the need to improve the
    communications equipment in Park Police districts and facilities
    system-wide. District One and the Glen Echo Horsebarn are not special
    cases.
        A recent study performed by the National Park Service Radio
    Managers and Office of Information Resource Management staff identified
    the following short-term United States Park Police needs: improve the
    system's preventative maintenance; adjust telephone line interfaces and
    augment and better train communications staff; contract an engineering
    firm to analyze the radio system; and provide alternatives to correct
    cited problems including the conversion to narrowband operations and
    the availability of commercial and leasing options. The cost of the
    initial short-term needs has been estimated at $255,000, which is
    proposed for funding in fiscal year 2000.
        Reliable communications equipment is vital for all law enforcement
    officers. The U. S. Park Police, along with needs at all NPS sites,
    will be upgraded to comply with a National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration (NTIA) mandate which has directed the
    Department of the Interior to convert all of its current VHF
    frequencies to narrowband equipment, with all equipment to be converted
    by 2005.
        Long-term needs include implementing the results of the engineering
    study to include newer ``trunking'' technology. It was further
    recommended that a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system be implemented
    to improve Park Police response time, automatic identification of
    caller, and improved officer location information. The cost to
    implement the long-term needs is estimated at over $13 million and will
    be addressed through funding proposals over a number of years.
        The United States Park Police have identified this funding need in
    the National Park Service's Operation Formulation System (OFS) Program,
    an official database of unfunded budgetary needs.
        Question. I understand that the Park Police has a long-term
    personnel shortfall and currently employs almost 150 officers less than
    its authorization of about 700 officers. Do you see this shortfall as a
    problem and are there any efforts being made to address this issue?
        Answer. There is no authorized staffing level. The NPS believes,
    however, that an on-board strength level of 625 officers is needed.
    Accordingly, the National Park Service's budget request for fiscal year
    2000 includes an increase of $1.861 million which, coupled with
    $500,000 provided in fiscal year 1999, would establish a base amount
    dedicated to funding two recruit classes annually. The $2.361 million
    would be used to cover salary costs for 48 park police cadets per year
    during their training, travel, lodging expenses, initial uniform,
    equipment issuance, applicant physicals, background investigations, and
    incidental costs incurred at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
    Center, Brunswick Georgia. At the conclusion of training, the new
    officers will fill existing funded vacancies, and allow attainment of
    essential staff levels by fiscal year 2001. The funding for the recruit
    classes would continue to remain available for two more recruit classes
    every year, as needed.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gorton. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, April 22, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                           Bureau of Land Management
    Prepared Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director, Interstate
                           Mining Compact Commission
        My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of the
    Compact's member states concerning the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request
    for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of
    the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $50.6 million
    to fund Title V grants to states for the implementation of their
    regulatory programs and $169.2 million for state Title IV abandoned
    mine land (AWL) program grants. Our statement will address both of
    these budgeted items.
        The Compact is comprised of 18 eastern and mid-continent states
    that together produce some 60 percent of the Nation's coal as well as
    important noncoal minerals. Participation in the Compact is gained
    through the enactment of legislation by the member states authorizing
    their entry into the Compact and they are represented by their
    respective Governors who serve as Commissioners. The Compact's purposes
    are to advance the protection and restoration of land, water and other
    resources affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in
    each of the party states that will achieve comparable results in
    protecting, conserving and improving the usefulness of natural
    resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient,
    productive and economically viable mining industry.
        Over the past several years, the Commission has alerted the
    subcommittee to an alarming and potentially debilitating trend in Title
    V grant funding. As you know, these grants support the implementation
    of state regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and
    Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and
    effective operation of those programs. Ever since fiscal year 1995, the
    appropriation for these grants has either decreased or remained
    stagnant. Once again this year, the Office of Surface Mining has failed
    to provide any increase for Title V grants, despite the states'
    projected need for additional moneys to meet actual program expenses.
        Each year, OSM requests and receives increases in its budget to
    meet ``uncontrollable costs'' (such as workers' compensation,
    unemployment compensation, retirement costs and pay rate increases) and
    ``fixed overhead costs''. In estimating its projected program operating
    costs, the states face these same annual increases, in addition to
    increased costs associated with the escalating cost of travel and
    replacement of equipment (especially vehicles and computers). And yet,
    for five federal fiscal years, we have received no increases in the
    grants that are supposedly intended to support our programs.
        All of this finally caught up with the states and OSM in fiscal
    year 1999. Facing a flat-line appropriation once again, OSM attempted
    to allocate fiscal year 1999 Title V grant moneys based on a formula
    that allegedly took into account past program spending (otherwise known
    as ``obligations''). Pursuant to this allocation formula, some states
    saw reductions in their grant amounts in the 20-30 percent range
    compared to their estimated needs and to their fiscal year 1998 amounts
    As a result of those reductions, some states faced mandatory lay-offs
    of state personnel and others had to deal with another year of being
    unable to replace worn out vehicles used by inspectors in the field.
    More specific examples of the impact of reduced grant amounts are as
    follows:
      --``Undoubtedly, we will have to curtail some important activities.
            What these activities will be is unclear. Do we stop our
            efforts to make advances in technology? Should we cut back on
            successful compliance assistance and pollution prevention
            efforts? Do we maintain a work force that will have fewer
            vehicles or do we reduce the work force below the program
            minimums in order to purchase badly needed vehicles? These
            difficult decisions will be made as prudently and
            compassionately as possible with the goal of maximizing our
            environmental responsibilities.''
      PA Department of Environmental Protection (FY 1999 grant allocation
            reduced 22.25 percent below state estimate.)
      --``With decreased federal support, it is apparent that an acute
            problem may develop. If federal funding for the coal regulatory
            program continues at the proposed federal fiscal year 1999
            level, by state fiscal year 2001, the Division of Mining and
            Reclamation will have exhausted its cash balance to less than a
            three-month operating reserve. The only way to avoid this
            crisis at the present time would be to expend state funds only
            to the extent that they are matched by federal funds. At
            present federal funding levels, this would mean reducing our
            overall projected program expenses by approximately $700,000
            annually. Such a reduction would potentially reverse all of our
            progress in program development and support to date, and may
            result in a reduction in staffing of up to 15 FTE. Obviously,
            such a reduction would be catastrophic to our primacy
            program.''
      Ohio Department of Natural Resources (FY 1999 grant allocation
            reduced 22.4 percent below state estimate.)
      --``Salary funding reductions have been made to Bureau of Mines
            personnel decreasing the estimated time that can be dedicated
            to working on regulatory issues. Cuts were made to
            administration and inspection personnel salaries. Personnel
            will have less time to support the program and all cross
            training of inspectors has been totally cut. Travel funds have
            been reduced resulting in fewer opportunities to attend
            necessary meetings and training sessions. Purchases of some
            necessary equipment that was scheduled to be replaced during
            this fiscal year will be delayed. Six computers have failed the
            Y2K compatibility tests and were scheduled to be replaced or
            upgraded this year.''
      Maryland Department of the Environment (FY 1999 grant allocation
            reduce 31.3 percent below state estimate.)
        The examples of the impacts of OSM's fiscal year 1999 Title V grant
    allocations go on and on. To OSM's credit, the agency has agreed to
    seek a supplemental appropriation to shore up state grants and we would
    urge you to approve such a request. As important, however, is the need
    to reverse the debilitating trend that has resulted in the dire
    circumstances now facing the states in fiscal year 1999. We therefore
    urge you to increase the budgeted amount for Title V grants in fiscal
    year 2000 to $55.4 million, which is what the states have projected
    their actual needs to be in fiscal year 2000. To the extent that states
    face anticipated shortfalls in fiscal year 1999 and assuming that a
    supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1999 fails, the amount of
    funding needed for fiscal year 2000 may increase by an additional $1.2
    million in order to make the states whole.
        It is critical that you understand the basis for the states'
    estimates of program costs for fiscal year 2000. Those estimates, which
    are not reflected in OSM's budget justification document but which are
    attached to this statement, are based on actual projected costs and are
    not inflated to anticipate a reduction by OSM to achieve budget target
    levels. The states have been instructed by OSM to provide their best
    estimates based on anticipated actual program costs. The states provide
    OSM with two estimates, one at 18 months out which is used to prepare
    the initial budget proposal and another at 3 months out just prior to
    submission of the Department's final budget to OMB. These latter
    numbers are as accurate, credible and realistic as possible and reflect
    the true program costs and funding needs of the states.
        For years now, we have tried to impress upon OSM and your
    subcommittee the value and importance of these estimates and the
    necessity of meeting the states' funding needs. In fiscal year 1999,
    the folly of failing to do so has resulted in significant negative
    impacts on state regulatory programs. It will require all of the
    states' fiscal ingenuity and belt-tightening efforts, together with
    some difficult trade-offs, to manage our programs and resources in such
    a way that we can achieve the same level of performance that has been
    expected from us in the past. We are especially concerned about the
    impacts of this funding crisis on OSM's evaluation of state programs
    pursuant to federal oversight. How ironic it would be for the states to
    receive something less than the high marks we have consistently
    received from OSM due to reduced grant funding.
        It is especially frustrating for the states to be faced with this
    dilemma this fiscal year when OSM has finally heard our pleas about the
    need to increase Title IV (AML) grants. We obviously support this
    increase and strongly endorse OSM's plan to continue these increase
    over the next few years until the AML program is funded at a level
    commensurate with fee receipts. The states are prepared to deliver the
    expected benefits and services to our customers under the Title IV AML
    program in a cost-effective and efficient manner and welcome the new
    opportunities presented by increased AML funding. The inventory of
    existing AML problems clearly presents the states with a challenge to
    direct whatever AML grant moneys are available to the remediation of
    these remaining problems. The states welcome that challenge and stand
    ready to proceed expeditiously as moneys continue to be allocated from
    the Trust Fund.
        However, it must be kept in mind that the key to avoiding future
    AMLs is an effective Title V regulatory program that assures active
    mining will occur in a controlled and environmentally responsible
    manner. Adequate Title V grants are the lifeblood of effective state
    regulatory programs. Should states be unable or unwilling to operate
    these programs due to funding constraints, the federal government will
    be faced with the burden of operating regulatory programs at a
    substantially increased cost. Further, without Title V programs in
    place, states are unable to access Title IV funds, in spite of OSM's
    proposed increases. In the final analysis, it behooves everyone--OSM,
    the Congress and the states--to commit the resources necessary to
    assure strong and effective state programs that will achieve the
    purposes and objectives of SMCRA, thereby protecting the environment
    where active mining operations occur and enhancing the environment
    through remediation of past problems associated with abandoned mines.
        OSM has proposed an amount of $11.6 million for technology
    development and transfer, which includes improving and expanding the
    services and technical systems provided to states. We wholeheartedly
    endorse this commitment by OSM to strengthening and enhancing state
    programs. In this regard, one of the most successful programs of
    technical support for the states undertaken by OSM is the development
    of the Technical Information Processing System (TIPS). TIPS assists the
    states in making technical decisions associated with permit reviews;
    performing cumulative hydrologic impact assessments; quantifying
    potential effects of coal mining; quantifying revegetation success;
    assisting in the design of AML projects; and preparing environmental
    assessments and environmental impact statements. This function will be
    particularly important given several pending issues such as mountaintop
    removal/valley fills, blasting and subsidence. TIPS will also be
    critical in the ongoing efforts by the states to develop effective
    electronic permitting functions. We are hopeful that funding will be
    available to replace or update the current TIPS workstations, many of
    which are in dire need of attention.
        We also urge the subcommittee to continue its support of OSM
    funding for states to attend OSM technical training sessions. Given
    state budget constrains as detailed above, travel to these valuable OSM
    training sessions is impossible without federal funding. OSM's
    technical training program is one of the shining stars of the federal
    program and is an excellent example of how OSM can best support the
    states in the implementation of their programs. This program is also a
    stellar example of state/federal cooperation in achieving the goals of
    SMCRA.
        We are also hopeful that OSM, as part of its commitment to
    technical services, will continue to support funding for the Computer-
    Assisted Library Search Service, which benefits both the mineral
    producing states and the public. The system provides searches to yield
    complete and accurate data in minutes, thereby eliminating the need for
    staff manually search through volumes of documents. As implementation
    of SMCRA becomes more and more complex, the need for this service has
    increased. The states, in particular, have become reliant on the
    system's ability to assist us with the implementation of our programs
    and to address the myriad compliance actions that attend enforcement of
    our programs.
        Finally, we urge continued funding for the Small Operators
    Assistance Program (SOAP). This program is critical to the permitting
    of remining operations by small operators, especially the costs
    associated with background water quality assessments, overburden
    analysis, and probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) predictions.
    Without financial assistance to undertake these expensive analyses,
    small operators will be unable to submit quality permit packages for
    potential remining operations. This will, in turn, result in additional
    burdens on state and federal AML program funds as remining operations
    will be unavailable to correct problems that currently are on the AML
    inventory.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on OSM's
    fiscal year 2000 budget request. Should you have any questions or
    require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

      STATES' FISCAL YEAR 2000 TITLE V REGULATORY GRANT REQUESTS (MAY 1998)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              OSM revised
                                                              estimate (as
                                                            listed in OSM's
                   State                  State request          budget
                                                             justification
                                                               document)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama...........................         $1,029,275           $929,722
    Alaska............................            178,872            161,571
    Arkansas..........................            179,871            162,474
    Colorado..........................          1,977,084          1,785,858
    Illinois..........................          2,482,102          2,242,030
    Indiana...........................          2,098,457          1,895,492
    Iowa..............................            164,352            148,456
    Kansas............................            115,481            104,312
    Kentucky..........................         13,050,259         11,788,022
    Louisiana.........................            187,128            169,029
    Maryland..........................            583,986            527,502
    Mississippi.......................            132,072            119,298
    Missouri..........................            459,947            415,460
    Montana...........................          1,035,810            935,625
    New Mexico........................            630,159            569,209
    North Dakota......................            542,130            489,695
    Ohio..............................          2,307,000          2,083,864
    Oklahoma..........................            999,991            903,271
    Pennsylvania......................         11,365,156         10,265,904
    Texas.............................          1,446,392          1,306,495
    Utah..............................          1,670,163          1,508,623
    Virginia..........................          3,245,664          2,931,739
    West Virginia.....................          8,027,870          7,251,405
    Wyoming...........................          1,506,671          1,360,944
                                       -------------------------------------
          Totals......................         55,415,892         50,656,000
                                       =====================================
    Shortfall in state requested funding.................          4,759,892
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Timothy H. Quinn, Acting General Manager,
               Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
    (Metropolitan) submits the following comments for the record regarding
    fiscal year (FY) 2000 funding for activities by the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) with regard to its participation in the Department of
    the Interior's Colorado River Salinity Control Program. The 1984
    amendments to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Act),
    direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a comprehensive program
    to minimize salt contributions to the Colorado River from federally
    owned lands administered by the BLM.
        Metropolitan is a wholesale water supplier responsible for meeting
    the supplemental needs of the 16 million residents and the associated
    economy within its service area on the coastal plain of Southern
    California. The Colorado River continues to meet more than one-half of
    these supplemental water needs, and Metropolitan is vitally concerned
    that the quality of this irreplaceable water supply be maintained.
        Metropolitan requests that Congress allocate $5.2 million of the
    Management of Land and Resources appropriation, Land Resources
    activity, Soil, Water, and Air Management subactivity for fiscal year
    2000, for BLM's continued participation in the Colorado River salinity
    control program. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
    salinity control activities schedule that seeks to maintain the water
    quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and
    approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the interstate organization that
    coordinates the Basin states' salinity control efforts, supports this
    level of funding. Use of these funds would be for immediate
    implementation of salinity control measures through improvements in
    rangeland management.
        Due to geological conditions, the land within the Colorado River
    Basin is composed largely of soils heavily laden with salts. Large
    portions of these lands are federally owned, and are managed by the BLM
    for a variety of uses: recreation; road building and transportation;
    oil, gas and mineral exploration and production; and most
    significantly, grazing. As a result, man has induced and accelerated
    the natural erosion processes. When such soils and rocks heavily laden
    with salt are eroded, much of the resulting silt is carried along in
    the Colorado River and its tributaries--sometimes for long distances.
    Ultimately, the silt settles in the streambed or on the flood plain.
    The salts, however, are dissolved in the water and remain in the
    stream, appearing in the water supplies of downstream users. The
    accumulative nature of these salts causes more severe water quality
    impacts the farther downstream each succeeding use occurs.
        The rangeland management programs of the BLM have demonstrated that
    they can bring about some of the most cost-effective salinity control
    actions available. While effective at reducing unnecessary salt
    addition to this important water supply source, these actions are
    environmentally oriented as they are designed to prevent erosion,
    enhance wildlife habitats, and increase grazing opportunities. The BLM
    has studied hundreds of watersheds in the States of Colorado, Utah, and
    Wyoming as potential sites for implementation, and has selected several
    locations where promising control measures could be implemented within
    a very short timeframe. Such measures are projected to have an early
    beneficial impact on the salinity of Colorado River water received by
    downstream users.
        Metropolitan believes it is essential that your Subcommittee
    support the allocation of the recommended funding of $5.2 million for
    the BLM's activities on Colorado River salinity control for fiscal year
    2000. Your assistance and support to ensure continued funding of the
    Colorado River Salinity Control Program now and in the future will
    continue the progress already achieved by this model of
    intergovernmental cooperation.
        We appreciate your support and stand ready to work with you and
    your Subcommittee. Please contact Brad Hiltscher, Metropolitan's
    Legislative Representative in Washington, D.C. at (202) 296-3551 if we
    can answer any questions or provide additional information.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
        The Governing Board of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
    appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony in support of a $5
    million appropriation to the Bureau of Land Management for acquisitions
    in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. The Conservancy was
    established by the California Legislature in 1991 to acquire and hold
    in trust open space in the mountainous lands surrounding the Coachella
    Valley, and to provide for the public's enjoyment and use of those
    lands consistent with the protection of cultural, scientific, scenic,
    and wildlife resources.
        The Scenic Area is the mountain range that forms the backdrop of
    the Coachella Valley cities, including Palm Springs, Cathedral City,
    Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta. The mountains
    rise quite steeply from the desert floor to an alpine environment atop
    San Jacinto Peak at 10,800 feet. The resource values in the mountains
    run the gamut from scenic and wildlife to cultural and recreational.
    The Scenic Area is of great importance to the Coachella Valley's
    economy, and hundreds of thousands of people who come to the desert
    each year for vacation enjoy our mountains, and, in so doing,
    contribute to the local economy.
        The Conservancy would like to inform you about two partnerships.
    The first partnership is the local, state, and federal partnership that
    has been working for years to protect the National Scenic Area. The
    attached chart shows the magnitude of this partnership. Since 1990 the
    state of California has provided over $20 million for acquisition and
    the local communities nearly $10 million, including $3.9 million since
    January 1st for a key acquisition in Andreas Canyon. BLM has
    contributed over $11 million in LWCF money in that time period. This is
    a partnership that you can be proud of having supported, and you can be
    confident that your continued support will again leverage state and
    local contributions. With the listing of the peninsular bighorn sheep
    as an endangered species last year, we are in ever-greater need of
    acquisition funding to protect the National Scenic Area, which is home
    to the magnificent bighorn sheep. Land acquisition activities are
    accelerating in an effort to avert conflicts over the bighorn sheep and
    to enhance protection for the species.
        The Conservancy and BLM are currently talking with nine key
    landowners about the acquisition of their property. Together their
    holdings total 13,830 acres, the total value of which is in the range
    of $19 to $26 million. Five of these landowners are committed willing
    sellers at an estimated cost of $3.4 million, and the BLM's remaining
    fiscal year 1999 LWCF money will initiate these acquisitions.
    Appraisals are currently being conducted on these properties. Of the
    other four landowners, three have indicated a strong interest in
    selling, contingent upon the purchase price being determined and how
    quickly the acquisitions could occur. The value of their land is in
    excess of $10 million. The final landowner has not yet indicated
    whether or not he wants to sell. The requested $5 million appropriation
    would complete the pending projects and enable BLM to initiate one or
    more of the other willing seller acquisitions. The Conservancy is
    optimistic that state funds will be available in the coming fiscal year
    to provide a significant state contribution toward those acquisitions.
        The second partnership is the southern California NCCP cooperative
    effort. Representatives from NCCP efforts in five counties meet monthly
    to share information and provide mutual support for each other's
    efforts. Collectively, these NCCP plans comprise the core of a
    bioregional conservation plan for all of southern California. This is
    certainly one of, if not the most, most comprehensive and proactive
    planning efforts in the nation. We also request your support for the
    funding needs of our NCCP partners, namely, $10 million in acquisition
    funds for the San Diego Wildlife Refuge, $2 million in acquisition
    funds for Otay Mountain, and $2 million in NCCP planning funds. To meet
    other needs in the area, as well as in other areas of the country, we
    support $80 in Cooperative Endangered Species Act funding and full
    funding for the LWCF program.
        In conclusion, the Conservancy would like to update you on some of
    the successful acquisition efforts in the Scenic Area. We are pleased
    to report the completion of a partnership acquisition by the BLM and
    the City of Palm Desert, in which each contributed $1.25 million to
    acquire the C.C. Myers property. Also, as alluded to earlier, the
    County of Riverside recently committed $1.9 million and the Agua
    Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians committed $2 million to acquire the
    Andreas Cove Development Company property at the mouth of Andreas
    Canyon. The Conservancy purchased 91 acres and the Friends of the
    Desert Mountains have 213 acres in escrow, using Adopt an Acre program
    contributions from community members and corporate sponsors.
        Land and Water Conservation fund money has been well spent in the
    Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area because of these
    partnerships. The money is an investment in more than land. It is an
    investment in a model of local, state, and federal agencies working
    successfully together, and with diverse private sector groups. The
    Coachella Valley has an excellent history of such cooperative efforts
    in land acquisition and in preparing successful plans to deal with
    endangered species issues. That cooperation is alive and well today; in
    fact it is healthier than ever. An LWCF appropriation is a key
    ingredient in the recipe for the success we have had and are continuing
    to enjoy. The Conservancy hopes this Subcommittee will support an LWCF
    appropriation as you have in the past.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Rollin D. Sparrowe, President, Wildlife
                              Management Institute
        Chairman Gorton, the Wildlife Management Institute, founded in
    1911, is a non-profit organization staffed by experienced resource
    management professionals dedicated to improving the management of
    wildlife and wildlife habitat.
                    funding for wildlife and range programs
        We at the Institute are very concerned about the lack of funding
    for the Bureau of Land Management, particularly its wildlife and range
    management programs. The BLM manages the largest area of public lands
    in the United States (264 million acres), and 162 million acres is
    rangeland in the western States. We are concerned that the President's
    requests for the Wildlife and Fisheries program ($34.688 million) and
    Rangeland Management ($67.217 million) are inadequate. These two
    programs have been underfunded and understaffed for so long that the
    staff are taking a perverse pride in doing without. The number of BLM
    wildlife biologists, for example, is lower than it was almost 20 years
    ago--275. The Forest Service, which is also understaffed, has 376 FTE's
    and needs 454 FTEs. Furthermore, those biologists currently working for
    the BLM are frequently pulled into the office to work on grazing
    permits and other paperwork, and are unavailable for on-the-ground
    work.
        We strongly support the President's request for $4.3 million to
    conduct interdisciplinary grazing permit reviews and to complete
    integration of the standards and guidelines into local land-use plans.
    We hope this new funding will alleviate some of the staffing and range
    managment problems we have seen in the past. We also support the
    proposed minimum $3.5 million increase for control and eradication of
    invasive weed species, $1.092 million increase for the wild horse and
    burro management program, and $740,000 increase for riparian
    management.
       sage grouse, lesser prairie chicken, and black tailed prairie dog
        Although we strongly support the BLM's Wildlife and Range Programs
    throughout the nation, we are very concerned about the condition of
    wildlife habitat in the Great Basin and Southwest, where the BLM and
    other federal land management agencies are facing a major wildlife
    crisis. In addition to the nearly 100 species already listed or
    proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, several others
    are on the verge of being listed including the sage grouse, the lesser
    prairie chicken, and the black-tailed prairie dog. The demise of these
    species is but one signal that major habitat problems in these two
    regions are not adequately addressed.
        The State of Utah recently listed sage grouse as a Sensitive
    Species, and the decline of the sage grouse is not limited to Utah. In
    a February 1999 letter addressed to the directors of three federal land
    management agencies, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies states that, ``The Association is very concerned about current
    population trends of sage grouse. Nearly all populations appear to have
    declined significantly over the past 20 years. Reasons for declines in
    sage grouse populations are varied and complex, but most seem directly
    related to habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation . . . . Without
    adequate resource consideration for sage grouse and a proactive habitat
    enhancement program that includes compatible sagebrush steppe
    management actions and programs, it is unlikely that sage grouse
    management goals and viability can be achieved. As you may know, there
    are already preliminary inquiries being made by some members of the
    public to list sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.''
        One area of particular concern is the sage grouse population in
    southwestern Wyoming where extensive development of new oil and gas
    fields is planned. Thousands of new wells with attendant roads,
    pipelines, and other facilities are planned in sagebrush habitat from
    the Green River to Pinedale. In combination with other types of habitat
    loss, this new development could result in the listing of sage grouse.
    We are concerned that environmental assessments do not adequately
    address habitat for sage grouse and other wildlife. In the Pinedale
    area, Sublette antelope and mule deer populations have declined, and
    hunting seasons have been shortened as a result. Loss of preferred
    habitat may slow or prevent their recovery.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the lesser prairie
    chicken should be listed but precluded under the Endangered Species
    Act. This species' habitat is mostly east of BLM lands and on private
    land; however, lesser prairie chickens occupy remnants of their range
    in New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Again loss of habitat is
    the suspected cause of this species decline. Lesser prairie chicken
    habitat has been converted to agricultural land, and overgrazing and
    ``control'' of shinnery oak have also had adverse effects. BLM
    biologists in New Mexico have been working on grazing plans to resolve
    some of these problems.
        The black-tailed prairie dog, once widely distributed, now occupies
    less than 1 percent of its former range, and its population has
    declined to about 2 percent of historic numbers. Causes of its decline
    are again multiple: disease, poisoning, conversion of its habitat to
    favor livestock, and unregulated shooting. Tied closely to this species
    is the already listed black-footed ferret.
        The listing of these three species under the Endangered Species Act
    would almost certainly affect grazing, mineral development, and
    recreational use of both public and private lands. To reiterate, the
    nation would be far better served if the needs of these species were
    met before they become listed.
                 wildlife and fish habitat program initiatives
        The BLM's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Program has
    identified three internal initiatives that should improve wildlife
    habitat in the Great Basin and the Southwest Desert: $16 million for a
    Great Basin Shrub-steppe initiative, $16 million for the Southwest
    Desert Initiative, and $6.8 million for a Riparian and Wetlands
    Initiative. The Wildlife Management Institute supports these
    initiatives and would like to see them fully funded with increases in
    the agency's budget, rather than funded at the President's request
    level. The BLM manages 40 million acres of shrub-steppe habitat in the
    Great Basin and Intermountain West. Wildlife habitat in this area has
    deteriorated because of many causes, including altered fire regimes,
    overgrazing, and oil and gas development. Now, about one third is
    dominated by annual grasses and noxious weeds. The Southwest Desert and
    riparian areas are also at risk because of a variety of reasons
    including altered fire regimes and overgrazing by domestic livestock,
    wild horses, and burros.
        The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program has identified about $26
    million dollars worth of projects that will NOT be funded in the
    President's budget request. Of this amount, $20 million worth of
    projects are in the Great Basin, Southwest Desert, and in riparian
    areas and wetlands. For example, unfunded projects for sage grouse
    include prescribed burns in timber and sagebrush-grasslands, sagebrush
    management, expanded monitoring of sage grouse, studies of the effects
    of oil and gas development on sage grouse, controlling cheatgrass,
    delineating key nesting habitats and controlling livestock in these
    areas, inventorying sage grouse habitat, improving grazing management,
    and improving riparian brood-rearing areas. In New Mexico, the BLM
    plans to leave a Challenge Cost Share program for the lesser prairie
    chicken on the table because the agency does not have enough money to
    match private funds. There are other unfunded projects as well for elk,
    desert bighorn sheep, Dall sheep, moose, management of wild horses and
    burros, and projects to reduce conflicts between wildlife and domestic
    livestock.
                                 riparian areas
        The BLM has completed an inventory of most of its riparian areas,
    and about half are in need of immediate action to prevent them from
    further deterioration. Riparian areas are not only important for fish,
    they are important for wildlife. In the desert Southwest, for example,
    stream banks are oases for wildlife and a birdwatcher's paradise. In
    the Great Basin, sage grouse, elk, deer, and many other species are
    dependent on riparian areas. The agency has identified $8 million in
    unfunded projects for riparian and wetlands restoration.
                                   rangelands
        The BLM has inventoried about half of the 162 million acres of
    rangelands that it manages, and only 36 percent is in ``late seral''
    (good ) or ``potential natural community'' (excellent) status. The
    remainder needs work. In the Great Basin, the agency has identified
    tens of thousands of acres that need to be burned because they are
    pinyon-juniper or juniper or cheatgrass dominated lands. The incursion
    of pinyon pine and junipers into previous grass and shrub habitat
    reduces watershed function, wildlife habitat, and livestock forage and
    increases conflicts between wildlife and livestock. Improved livestock
    management and habitat restoration are needed on these lands. About 62
    million acres has some cheatgrass or medusahead wildrye and is at risk
    of being dominated by these two invasive weeds. The agency admits that
    it does not have the staff to implement a large restoration program.
                             seeking common ground
        Seeking Common Ground was established to lessen conflicts between
    livestock and wildlife by improving range habitat and increasing the
    availability of water. Seeking Common Ground is an ideal example of
    local people solving local problems on federal and private land in the
    national interest. All projects approved for funding under Seeking
    Common Ground must be cooperative projects between federal and State
    agencies, ranchers, and non-governmental organizations.
        An estimated $500,000 is needed for these projects, equally divided
    between the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. In
    the past, the BLM has taken the funding for this program from other
    underfunded programs. This program should be funded with add-on moneys
    to avoid distortions within the agency's other wildlife and range
    programs.
                              challenge cost share
        We support the BLM's Challenge Cost Share Program; however, any
    amount earmarked for Challenge Cost Share should also be a budget add-
    on. The BLM has such a lean budget that earmarks for specific programs
    under past budgets have caused distortion in the agency's other
    programs.
        Challenge Cost Share Programs can substantially increase funding of
    habitat improvement programs. For example, the U.S. Forest Service has
    been able to match each federal dollar with almost $2.5 of non-federal
    funds. The BLM has Challenge Cost Share dollars on the table because
    the agency did not have staff or matching funds.
        In conclusion, we are very concerned about funding for the BLM,
    particularly its wildlife and range management programs. Under the
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM has the responsibility
    for managing habitat for all wildlife--a responsibility equal to that
    of managing a vast amount of the nation's mineral estate. It appears
    that the President's budget request is inadequate to meet this agency's
    obligations to the nation.
        Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to work with you, the Committee,
    and staff to provide further documentation and to help avert a future
    wildlife crisis on much of the nation's public land.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director, Colorado
                           River Board of California
        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
    year 2000 funding for the Department of the Interior with respect to
    the federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. This
    program is carried out as a part of ecosystem and watershed management
    pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean
    Water Act.
        As you are aware, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the
    largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Much of the lands that
    are controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past
    management practices have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional
    processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been
    deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result of this
    disposition, salt is dissolved into the River System causing water
    quality problems downstream.
        Congress has charged federal agencies, including the BLM, to
    proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity measures available. In keeping with the
    Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the
    salinity control program, the Colorado River Board is requesting that
    Congress appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to
    support the BLM's portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program.
        The President's proposed budget has included $641 million in BLM's
    budget for Management of Lands and Renewal Resources. The Colorado
    River Board of California, the state agency charged with protecting
    California's interests and rights in the water and power resources of
    the Colorado River System, formally requests that Congress appropriate
    $5,200,000 of these funds for the Colorado River Basin salinity control
    activities as recommended by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Forum.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource for California. California's Colorado River water users
    are presently suffering economic damages estimated at about $750
    million per year due to the river's salinity, and those damages are
    expected to increase significantly by the turn of the century without
    further salinity control measures being implemented. Preservation of
    its quality through an effective Salinity Control Program will avoid
    the additional economic damages to river users in California.
        The Board greatly appreciates your support of the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance and
    leadership in securing adequate funding for this vital program.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Jack A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado
                       River Basin Salinity Control Forum
        This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
    Management for activities that assist the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Program. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) budget, as
    proposed by the Administration, supports ecosystems and watershed
    management. The activities needed to control salts being contributed
    from the BLM lands are a part of ecosystem and watershed management.
    Because the budgeting process lumps all activities together, we can
    only presume that there are adequate dollars in the President's budget
    to move ahead with the water quality enhancement and protection
    programs needed in the Colorado River drainage to ensure that salts in
    excess amounts are not contributed to the river system. Our analysis
    indicates that the Bureau of Land Management needs to specifically
    target the expenditure of funds in the amount of $5,200,000 for
    activities that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands
    in the Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2000. The Forum simply
    supports the President's Budget because we presume, but cannot discern,
    that adequate funds will be expended on this needed water quality
    effort.
        Although the Forum has not been able to determine from limited
    budget documents how appropriated funds will be spent, we are much
    encouraged by recent efforts by the Bureau of Land Management. A
    salinity coordinator for the basinwide program has been selected.
    Salinity coordinators in each of the state offices have been
    identified. There has been a meeting to help coordinate a basinwide
    effort that involved the basinwide salinity coordinator and the state
    representatives. The Bureau of Land Management should move to identify
    salinity control goals under the Government Performances and Results
    Act (GPRA) and report to Congress each year its accomplishments. The
    Forum is receiving more meaningful reports from BLM representatives.
    The success of the Bureau of Land Management in controlling erosion
    and, hence, salt contributions to the Colorado River and its
    tributaries is essential to the success of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program and the adherence to water quality standards
    that have been adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
    approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Forum submits this
    testimony in support of adequate funding so that the Bureau of Land
    Management programs can move ahead at a pace that is needed to meet
    these water quality standards.
                                    overview
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
    Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
    made, through a minute of the International Boundary and Water
    Commission, to Mexico with respect to the quality of water being
    delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act established
    a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water
    users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then
    newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the
    Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead federal role
    by the Congress. This testimony is in support of funding for a portion
    of the Title II program.
        After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
    Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
    amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping
    the Secretary of the Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River
    Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity control
    responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, and to a sister
    agency of the Bureau of Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management.
    Congress has charged the Administration with implementing the most
    cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
    removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept, in
    addition to proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts
    in the Colorado River Basin.
        Since the Congressional mandates of nearly two decades ago, much
    has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
    system. Reclamation recognizes that the damages to United States' water
    users alone may soon be approaching $1 billion per year.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
    coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress to
    support the implementation of a program necessary to control the
    salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the
    Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum prepares a formal report
    analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
    salinity, and the program necessary to keep the salinities at or below
    the levels measured in the river system in 1972.
        In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
    the salinity concentrations measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and
    Hoover Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The
    plan necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan
    of implementation.'' The 1996 Review of water quality standards
    includes an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation
    requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed to plan. If
    adequate funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies
    involved are in agreement that the numeric criteria will be exceeded
    and damage from the high salt levels in the water will be even more
    widespread in the United States.
                                 justification
        The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the
    Colorado River Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed
    by the Bureau of Land Management is heavily laden with salt. Past
    management practices, which include the use of lands for recreation;
    for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral
    exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional
    processes. When soil and rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt
    is carried along for some distance and ultimately settles in the
    streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, are dissolved and remain
    in the river system causing water quality problems downstream.
        The Forum believes that the federal government has a major and
    important responsibility with respect to controlling pick-up of salt
    from public lands. The Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission
    report finds this to be true. Congress charged federal agencies,
    including the BLM, to proceed with measures to control the salinity of
    the Colorado River, with a strong mandate to seek out the most cost-
    effective options. It has been determined that BLM's rangeland
    improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective
    salinity control measures available. These salinity control measures
    may be more cost-effective than some now being considered for
    implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation and by the Department of
    Agriculture. They are very environmentally acceptable, as they will
    prevent erosion, increase grazing opportunities, increase dependable
    stream runoffs, and enhance wildlife habitats.
        Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah,
    Colorado, and Wyoming, consortiums of federal and state agencies,
    including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-
    effective salinity control efforts could be implemented immediately. In
    keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
    effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the
    Congress appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to
    support the Bureau of Land Management's portion of the Colorado River
    salinity control program as set forth in the adopted plan of
    implementation.
                 details concerning the requested appropriation
        After conferring with BLM officials, the Forum believes there needs
    to be spent in fiscal year 2000, by the Bureau of Land Management,
    $5,200,000 for salinity control. We are particularly concerned that the
    appropriation titled Management of Lands and Renewable Resources is
    adequately funded. The Forum also requests that a specific amount,
    $800,000, be marked for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program as has been the direction from the Committee in the past.
        The Forum believes that although it is commendable for the
    administration to formulate a budget that focuses on ecosystems and
    watershed management, it is essential that funds be targeted on
    specific subactivities and the results of those expenditures reported;
    this is necessary for accountability and for the effectiveness of the
    use of the funds. The Forum requests that the Committee require
    accounting, perhaps through GPRA, by the Bureau of Land Management in
    such a way that the results of their salinity control activities in
    connection with the expenditures of funds can be reviewed and measured.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming
        This testimony supports fiscal year 2000 funding for the Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM) to carry out Colorado River Basin salinity
    control activities. You will soon receive testimony from the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) on behalf of the seven
    Colorado River Basin States that is being submitted by the Forum's
    Executive Director, Jack Barnett. The State of Wyoming concurs in the
    fiscal year 2000 funding request and justification statements for BLM
    funding set forth in the Forum's testimony.
        The State of Wyoming is one of the seven member states represented
    on the Forum and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
    Council. The Council was created by Section 204 of the 1974 Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320, and like the
    Forum, is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the seven
    Colorado River Basin states. Both the Council and Forum serve important
    liaison roles among the seven states, the Secretaries of the Interior
    and Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA). The Council is directed by statute to advise these
    federal officials on the progress of the federal/state cost-shared,
    basin-wide salinity control programs, and annually recommends to the
    Federal agencies what level of funding it believes is required to allow
    the Program to meet its objective of assuring continuing compliance
    with the basin-wide water quality standards.
        The Council met most recently in October, 1998 and developed
    funding recommendations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 based on the
    progress the Programs are making in managing and reducing the salt
    loading into the Colorado River System. Based on analyses made by the
    Bureau of Reclamation and the Forum and after conferring with BLM
    agency officials, the Council recommends that the BLM expend $5,200,000
    in fiscal year 2000 to accomplish activities that BLM either has
    underway or should initiate in order to further control the
    concentrations of salinity of the Colorado River.
        It is particularly important that the BLM's line-item for
    Management of Lands and Renewable Resources be adequately funded. We
    further request that the specific funding amount of $800,000 be marked
    for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the
    direction to the BLM from the Committee in past years. Section 203(b)
    of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act as amended directs the
    Secretary of the Interior to develop a comprehensive program for
    minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
    administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This is both important
    and appropriate because the BLM is the largest manager of land in the
    Colorado River Basin (53 million acres of public lands in the Colorado
    River Basin above Yuma, Arizona) and because salt loading reductions on
    BLM-managed rangelands can be done more economically than some of the
    methods available to and projects being implemented by the Bureau of
    Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture.
        The Council and Forum recognize the major role that the BLM can
    have in the Colorado River Basin salinity control effort if more
    attention, effort and focus by the BLM is brought to bear on
    controlling salt discharges from the federal lands it manages. Great
    opportunity exists to decrease salt loading from BLM-managed lands to
    the river system. The Secretary of the Interior is directed by the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to give preference to those
    salinity control efforts which reduce salinity at the least cost per
    unit of salinity reduction, e.g. in the most cost-effective manner. The
    Forum and Council have aggressively urged, and will continue to
    encourage, the BLM to identify, plan and develop additional projects
    that will remove, or prevent the loading of, a greater tonnage of salts
    from the River system.
        The State of Wyoming wishes to emphasize the statement found in the
    Forum's testimony that while we are not opposed to BLM's budgetary
    process of focusing on ecosystem and watershed management, it remains
    essential that the expenditure of funds be directed to specific sub-
    activities and that the accounting for expenditures be done in such a
    manner that monitoring can take place on how the funds were used, what
    resources were benefitted and which natural resource concerns
    addressed. Wyoming and the other member states of the Forum have been
    frustrated by BLM's approach of identifying where funds are allocated
    as opposed to what purposes or how they are used to accomplish specific
    activities, objectives and benefits. The same difficulty exists with
    regard to accounting for how allocated funds have been expended. The
    BLM is simply unable at the present time to indicate how much money it
    is spending or where it is being spent to achieve salinity control
    benefits. For this reason, the Forum expressed in its testimony a
    strong desire to have the Congress direct the BLM to implement or
    modify its existing accounting practices to enable the Basin States to
    understand how much money this agency is allocating, and what results
    are being obtained, in carrying out its mandate for implementing a
    comprehensive program to minimize salt contributions from lands it
    administers. Thank you for your consideration of this statement.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Constance D. Holmes, Senior Vice President,
                       Policy National Mining Association
        The National Mining Association's (NMA) \1\ member companies
    account for approximately three-fourths of the coal production in the
    United States, over one billion tons annually, and the vast majority of
    mined minerals including iron ore, copper, gold, silver, uranium lead,
    zinc, and phosphate. The purpose of this statement is to present the
    mining industry's views on fiscal year 2000 programs for the following
    agencies: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
    Fossil Energy, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Geological
    Survey, the Office of Surface Mining, the Bureau of Land Management,
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Forest Service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The NMA has not received a federal grant, contract, or
    subcontract in fiscal years 1999, 1998, or 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            office of fossil energy
        An underlying reason for the strength of the United States economy
    is low-cost energy and especially the availability of electricity
    generated by coal, now approximately 56 percent of total. Much of the
    existing utility generating capacity is now reaching the end of its
    useful life and the challenge as we move into the 21st century will be
    the simultaneous replacement and expansion of our generating system
    with technologies that use our domestic fossil resource base while
    minimizing both environmental impacts and generating costs. The
    Department of Energy's past R&D activities in the area of coal research
    and coal generation provide a good basis for the technologies that will
    be required to maintain and expand use of coal while addressing
    existing and possibly more stringent environmental standards. The
    addition of a possible requirement to reduce emissions of carbon
    dioxide adds yet another dimension. But, while great strides have been
    made, improvements in both environmental performance and efficiency
    must continue. NMA supports maintaining DOE's R&D activities at least
    at the levels proposed in the fiscal year 2000 Budget request. These
    activities are targeted at technologies that will be required in the
    near term (from now until 2010) and in the long term (post 2010).
        During the near term, the results of the Clean Coal Technology
    program will begin to be seen. This program has been a highly
    successful industry and government partnership designed to demonstrate
    a new generation of innovative coal processes. NMA is concerned about
    the fiscal year 2000 request for a $246 million deferral in the Clean
    Coal Technology program. This deferral could jeopardize future funding
    of two projects in particular, which remain to be completed under this
    program--the Clean Energy Demonstration Project (an IGCC and fuel cell
    project planned for southern Illinois) and the combined steelmaking and
    power generation project planned for Geneva, Utah.
        Other near term projects which NMA supports (which are an outgrowth
    of the Clean Coal Technology program) include the funding for low
    emission boiler system and the work ongoing on pressurized fluidized
    bed combustion, primarily at the Wilsonville Power System Development
    plant.
        Over the longer term, the continuing use of coal as a valuable
    resource may depend upon the results of two major research areas
    undertaken by DOE.
        Vision 21.--Vision 21 is developing the power plant of the future
    and is, for coal, a cornerstone of DOE's long term program. The goal is
    a 60 percent efficient power plant with the flexibility to produce
    power from coal along with premium fuels and chemicals while
    incorporating industrial process heat generation to boost overall
    thermal efficiencies to as high as 85 percent while reducing carbon
    emissions by more than 62 percent. Vision 21 will take advantage of and
    expand many of the technologies developed in the Clean Coal program
    (for example, PFBC and IGCC). Over the last year preliminary studies
    have been undertaken and now that they are complete, it is important to
    move rapidly into the design and development of key modules for this
    new fleet of power plants. This is a long term program and the work
    that DOE is proposing for fiscal year 2000 Vision 21 effort is critical
    if the technologies being developed under this program are to be
    available in the post 2010 time period.
        Carbon Sequestration.--Equally important for the continuing
    availability of affordable electricity is development of a suite of
    technologies that will capture, or sequester, carbon emissions. It is
    uncertain at this point (and possibly unlikely) that carbon
    sequestration would be required, but carbon sequestration technologies
    will require several years to develop and research must be expanded now
    to have these technologies available should they be needed. NMA
    supports DOE Fossil Energy's request to increase the research dollars
    available for carbon sequestration work from $6.1 million in fiscal
    year 1999 to $9 million in fiscal year 2000. The three-pronged
    approaches--traditional research, enhancing sinks and searching for
    ``breakthrough'' technologies are a solid and reasonable approach. We
    would advocate however, that this program is of sufficient importance
    to support funding above the $9 million requested by the
    Administration.
        Coal Research and Development.--The NMA requests significant
    continuing funding for coal preparation and direct and indirect
    liquefaction. Advanced coal preparation technologies promise to reduce
    the cost of continued use of coal in traditional applications in large
    industrial and electric utility boilers. Development of cost-effective
    liquefaction technologies will open new opportunities for high quality
    coal use in both turbines for power and the production of liquid fuels.
    These systems are not only critical as an insurance policy against the
    disruption of imported oil to the U.S., but they are a necessary
    investment in establishing an economically viable liquid fuels program.
        National Laboratories and Cooperative R&D Programs.--The Department
    of Energy should continue its emphasis on making maximum use of its
    existing research facilities, including those national laboratories
    that traditionally have not been active in fossil energy. The National
    Laboratory system is an important complement to the future of the coal-
    based generation through advancing R&D Programs for more efficient
    combustion technologies.
                office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
        The Mining Industry of the Future Program.--The research priorities
    developed through this industry/government partnership will offer
    important direction to the Department of Energy, industry and the
    Congress as the research agenda needed to take the mining industry to
    the 21st Century. The mining industry has completed a statement
    defining the goals that the mining industry should attain by 2020 in
    six areas: exploration and characterization of resources; extraction;
    processing; utilization; environment and health and safety. A
    technology roadmap has been completed which defines research
    requirements in some detail and the first solicitation has been issued
    for proposals in each of the above areas. In 1999 two-additional
    roadmaps will be completed looking in more detail at requirements in
    extraction and in processing. NMA solicits the subcommittee's
    continuing support for the mining industry portion of this program and
    requests support for the increase in funding requested by DOE for this
    program. This request is for $3 million in fiscal year 2000.
                       energy information administration
        In addition to its value to the Nation, the functions performed by
    the Energy Information Administration (EIA) are of significant
    importance to the mining industry. EIA's unbiased analysis and
    independent short and long term forecasts form a basis for reasoned and
    responsible policy decisions by the Congress, the DOE and other
    government agencies on both the federal and state levels. EIA's
    independence and objectivity are especially important as the Nation
    considers the effects of new initiatives such as utility restructuring
    and climate change policies on our energy system, and our dependence on
    foreign sources of energy. EIA's energy data collection and
    dissemination responsibilities are essential to our industry's ability
    to evaluate production and market trends and to make investment
    decisions, which benefit the Nation. Unfortunately, over the past
    several years funding levels for EIA have been level or declining. Over
    the longer term this is counterproductive and will adversely affect the
    level, accuracy and timeliness of the information provided to industry
    and policy makers. We urge the subcommittee to support current levels
    of funding as a minimum, and increase the amount available to EIA if at
    all possible.
                            office of surface mining
        The Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program receives funding from coal
    operators and its purpose is to provide for the ``no-fault''
    reclamation of sites disturbed before the passage of SMCRA and not
    reclaimed to the Act's standards. NMA supports OSM's objective of
    funding the AML program at a level commensurate to fee receipts by
    2003. In fact, OSM should have been requesting funding all along at the
    level of annual receipts. However, NMA encourages the Subcommittee to
    insure that increased expenditures are used for ``on the ground''
    reclamation, not AML administration
        NMA is concerned by the lack of adequate funding for states under
    the Title V grant program. NMA has long supported state primacy. The
    history of SMCRA has shown that this aspect of SMCRA is working. States
    have long ago manifested both the expertise and the will to manage
    strong surface mining programs. OSM has recently evidenced its desire
    to partner with the states. The Subcommittee should recognize this
    effort by increasing state funding.
                bureau of land management and the forest service
        National Mining Association members are engaged in extensive
    exploration for and development of minerals on public lands. These
    lands are the cornerstone of the Nation's mining industry. In turn,
    mining operations on public lands generate taxes and employment. In
    many cases, mining is the major source of employment and tax revenues
    in rural communities.
        Industry continues to work with the Western Governors' Association
    pursuant to a memorandum of agreement to identify and work toward the
    elimination of disincentives to the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines
    in the West. It appears, as one reviews the BLM, USGS and Forest
    Service's proposed budgets that these agencies intend to allot
    significant amounts of money to the cleanup of abandoned mines in
    historic mining districts. These funds are hidden, however, within
    programs and initiatives such as the ``President's Clean Water
    Initiative'' and various watershed initiatives. States and industry are
    unable to find matching federal funds for on-the-ground cleanup in this
    morass of jargon and duplicative programs.
        Regarding the President's ``Lands Legacy Proposal,'' NMA agrees
    with the Chairman's assessment that ``It is simply irresponsible to
    take on new land responsibilities and give grants to cities, states and
    private institutions when we cannot afford to adequately take care of
    our primary federal responsibilities--the public lands.'' The Forest
    Service's Mineral's and Geology program is a victim of similar de facto
    budget reductions. The Forest Service budget justification shows
    continued reductions in the Minerals and Geology budget; however, the
    Washington headquarters' overhead increases and the field allocations
    decrease. This headquarters' overhead is not used for the Minerals and
    Geology Management program; it is allocated to the agency's national
    programs referred to as National Commitments that have little or
    nothing to do with the effective operation of the minerals program.
        The results of these funding shortfalls in the field are extended
    Environmental Impact Statement reviews (sometimes as long as 8 years),
    delays in mine plan processing, and inadequate federal compliance
    monitoring. These ``National Commitments,'' like the proposed ``Lands
    Legacy Proposal,'' are not peculiar to the Forest Service. The same
    type of actions are occurring in the BLM where the agency continues to
    expend resources to promulgate revisions to its Surface Management
    rules even though the Governors from affected states consider the
    proposal duplicative of existing state mining and other environmental
    programs and the National Academy of Sciences is currently studying the
    adequacy of existing rules.
        The mining industry, as well as other natural resource industries,
    is faced with increasing impediments to exploration and use of federal
    lands. Withdrawals of land from exploration by executive fiat coupled
    with NEPA review and permitting delays, are resulting in a marked
    decline in domestic exploration and development activity on BLM and
    Forest Service lands. With major mining companies scaling back U.S.
    exploration activities, the Nation's ability to continue to produce
    domestically the 46,000 pounds minerals annually consumed per citizen
    is jeopardized.
                             u.s. geological survey
        Federal Investment in geoscience research and information continue
    to pay enormous dividends and the rationale for continued support of
    geoscience remains strong. The Geological Survey's role in mineral
    exploration, identification of geological hazards and mapping offers
    important support to the mining industry. NMA supports maintaining
    these programs at current, or expanded levels. In addition, the Survey
    is the only source for most of the United States' statistical data on
    mining and mineral's commodities. This information provides the basis
    for informed policy decisions by government and is extensively used by
    other government agencies, by Members of Congress and by state and
    local governments, as well as by industry, academia and nongovernmental
    organizations. NMA is concerned that funding for the data and
    information functions has been declining since this area of
    responsibility was transferred to the Survey. Staff levels and mining
    expertise have declined significantly which affects the timeliness and
    accuracy of the data. NMA strongly advocates that the Survey increase
    the funding allocated to data and information while continuing to make
    use of expertise available from state geologists.
                   advisory council on historic preservation
        The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recently voted
    to finalize their rules amending their regulations implementing Section
    106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This action was taken
    despite the Council's public announcement several weeks earlier that
    they were withdrawing their proposed regulations and would pursue non-
    regulatory guidance on Section 106. NMA commented on the Council's
    proposed rule in November 1996, stating that the Council's ``. . .
    attempt to expand its limited role under Section 106 in a manner that
    transcends its statutory authority pervades almost the entire rule.''
    NMA recommends that the ACHP be prohibited from further implemention of
    revised Section 106 rules until it has fulfilled its statutory
    responsibilities and provided meaningful notice and comment to the
    public.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Ornithological Council
        The Ornithological Council consists of ten leading scientific
    ornithological societies--the American Ornithologists' Union,
    Association of Field Ornithologists, Seccion Mexican Consejo
    Internacional para la Preservacion de las Aves (CIPAMEX), Cooper
    Ornithological Society, Pacific Seabird Group, Raptor Research
    Foundation, Society of Canadian Ornithologists, Society of Caribbean
    Ornithology, Waterbird Society, and Wilson Ornithological Society--that
    together have a membership of nearly 6,500 ornithologists. It is our
    mission to provide scientific information about birds to legislators,
    regulatory agencies, industry decision makers, conservation
    organizations and others, and to promote the use of that scientific
    information in the making of policies that affect birds and the science
    of ornithology. A number of the ornithologists who belong to our member
    societies are either USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD)
    researchers or employees of the land management and natural resource
    agencies served by BRD.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this written testimony to
    the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies.
        The Ornithological Council supports the administration's requested
    increases for:
      --USGS DOI Science Support--$30 million from new funds
      --USGS Place-based Studies--$2.4 million
      --USGS BRD--$1 million for the National Biological Information
            Infrastructure
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird
            Management--$2.38 million for migratory bird conservation and
            monitoring and $288,000 for permit regulatory reform and
            management improvements
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Refuges--$5.34 million
            for wildlife protection and $5.03 million for habitat
            improvement
      --U.S. Forest Service--$37.2 million for forest and rangeland
            research
        In addition, we recommend allocations above the administration's
    request as follows:
      --USGS BRD--$15 million/year for three years, allocated to the
            Science Centers
      --USGS BRD--$3.5 million for continuation of Species and Habitat
            research and $2.0 million for clean water initiative research
            initiated in fiscal year 1999
      --USGS BRD--$1 million for the Cooperative Research Units
      --USGS BRD--$4 million for the National Biological Information
            Infrastructure
      --USFWS--$10 million for migratory bird management
      --U.S. Forest Service--$410,000 for rangeland and grassland ecology
            research
        Together, these increases total $119,548,000. This amount is
    insignificant compared to the economic value of maintaining the
    resources or the cost of recovery from mismanagement. For instance,
    according to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
    Wildlife-Associated Recreation, expenditures related to wildlife
    watching in that year totaled $29.2 billion. Hunting and fishing
    generated $71.9 billion in revenue.
      funding for the usgs biological resources division, fiscal year 2000
        Before commenting on specific aspects of the proposed budget for
    BRD, we would like to bring to the attention of the Committee the
    current status of funding for the BRD Science Centers, where the
    research is actually conducted.
    Deteriorating capacity of the BRD Science Centers
        It is becoming increasing difficult for BRD to conduct biological
    research because the Science Centers do not have adequate base funding.
    The BRD budget declined from a peak of $161 million in FY1994 to a low
    of $139 million in fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year 2000 request of
    $161.9 million is, therefore, approximately $37 million below the
    fiscal year 1994 level (adjusted for inflation at 3 percent per year).
    This inadequate funding has resulted in a deterioration of the capacity
    of the BRD Science Centers to conduct the research assigned to those
    Centers. Without sufficient base funding, the Science Centers rely on
    either cyclical funding or contractual funding with agencies outside
    the Department of Interior (DOI). Cyclical (year-to-year) funding is
    inappropriate for most biological research, which typically spans
    several years. If funding is not assured in advance for the anticipated
    duration of the project, the research cannot be planned. Contractual
    work for agencies outside the DOI (such as the Environmental Protection
    Agency or the Department of Defense) precludes the researcher from
    conducting BRD research, as the research time is necessarily allocated
    to projects that have funding.
        Some Science Centers have essentially no base funding. Even those
    with the highest levels of base funding have experienced severe
    reductions that impede their research programs. At the extreme end of
    the scale, the Columbia Environmental Research Center, which has a
    national mission of expertise in environmental toxicology and
    chemistry, and a regional mission of ecosystem science for large rivers
    and other ecosystems in the Central Region of the USGS, is operating
    almost entirely on cyclical and contractual funding. Nearly 98 percent
    of its funding goes to fixed costs.
    Funding BRD at more than the requested level
        The Ornithological Council supports the fiscal year 2000 Budget
    Request for BRD, and in fact encourages the Committee to consider
    appropriating a total of $21.26 million more than was requested. An
    increase of $15 million per year, over the next three years, should
    bring BRD back to the fiscal year 1994 enacted level, adjusted for
    inflation, by fiscal year 2002. All or substantially all of this money
    should be directed to the base funding of the Science Centers.
        We also encourage continued funding of programs that were included
    in the fiscal year 1999 enacted appropriations. These include $3.5
    million for Species and Habitat research and $2 million for Clean Water
    Initiative research. Biological research projects typically require
    several years of data collection, because biological systems vary from
    year to year. Conditions in any single year are not adequate to support
    conclusions about the status of a species, of habitat, or of any other
    component of the system. Therefore, to plan and conduct biological
    research, there must be a reasonable assurance that funding will
    continue for the anticipated duration of the project. We recognize the
    importance of the projects that will be supported by the requested
    increases (amphibian research and monitoring, research in the Hawaiian
    Archipelago and on coral reefs) but these new initiatives should be
    funded in addition to the existing programs, rather than supplanting
    them.
        We are also concerned about the proposed decrease for employee
    travel and training ($760,000). Improving the delivery of information
    from BRD to its partners requires that BRD scientists travel to
    professional conferences, training sessions, and scientific
    presentations. BRD scientists work closely with individual resource
    managers in the federal and state public land and natural resource
    management agencies. There is no substitute for this personal
    interaction, whether on-site or at regional meetings.
    Uncontrollables
        In the past, BRD has been required to offset increases in
    uncontrollables with decreases in research programs. This practice is
    unacceptable. We support the requested increase for $3.757 million for
    uncontrollables and urge Congress to instruct USGS not to require
    reductions in research programs to offset increases in uncontrollables.
    New funding for the DOI Science Support and Place-based Studies
            programs
        The requested budget for BRD includes funds that are actually
    designated for two USGS multidisciplinary programs--$3.8 million for
    Place-based Studies and $9.5 million for the new DOI Science Support
    program. The Ornithological Council supports these programs but
    believes that they should be funded with new funds rather than by
    designating funding from the four USGS divisions. This is particularly
    true with regard to BRD funds, which represent only 15 percent of the
    overall USGS budget request and which is the smallest of the four
    divisional budget requests.
    Cooperative research units
        The Cooperative Research Units have proven to be extremely
    effective at addressing the information needs of BRD partners. We
    support funding of $13.68 million ($1 million over the requested
    amount), which will allow full staffing of all existing Cooperative
    Research Units for the first time. It will also provide a small
    increase in base operating funds of $5,000 per unit, although this is
    little compensation for 20 years of level base funding.
    Community/Federal Information Partnerships
        Land use planning is central to local and state agencies. These
    partnerships are needed to complete the GAP (Gap Analysis Program) in
    all 50 states, which will give the state and local partners the
    information and tools needed for land use planning and resource
    management. We support the requested increase of $3 million for this
    program.
    National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII)
        There is an astonishing amount of biological data generated by
    federal, state, and private researchers, but it must be managed and
    made accessible to resource managers. BRD is providing much-needed
    leadership in the delivery of information to resource managers through
    the NBII. Private conservation organizations, academicians, and others
    can share their information through this system. However, as noted by
    the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology
    (PCAST), the NBII is inadequate in its current form (Teaming with Life:
    Investing in Science to Understand and Use America's Living Capital,
    March 1998). PCAST concluded that with adequate support (which it
    estimated at a minimum of $40 million per year for five years), NBII
    could be of use to industry, education, policy makers, and management
    agencies. We support the requested increase of $1 million for NBII and
    recommend that the fiscal year 2000 funding for this program be
    increased to $5 million.
      u.s. fish and wildlife service, office of migratory bird management
                                     (mbmo)
        The Ornithological Council supports the requested $2.75 million
    increase for migratory bird management. The management of waterfowl
    populations (through Adaptive Resource Management) has shown that
    resource management can be very effective if there is adequate
    information about the status of wild bird populations. The fundamental
    information needed for sound resource management is derived from
    monitoring. The requested increase for MBMO will allow for only a
    fraction of the needed monitoring of the populations of 836 bird
    species. It will also support the development of 60 science-based bird
    conservation plans and provide technical assistance to natural resource
    managers on public lands.
        The information needs for migratory bird management far exceed the
    amount requested by the administration. We recommend that MBMO funding
    be increased by an additional $10 million above the requested increase.
        We also strongly support the requested increase of $288,000 for
    permit management. MBMO issues 40,000 permits annually with a total
    budget of $712,000. These 17 different types of permits issued by the
    MBMO are prerequisites for almost all research conducted on wild birds.
    Over the past few years, funding for the Permits Office has been
    limited to the point that regulatory revisions have taken years to
    complete and implement. Over the past several years, ornithologists
    have had difficulties obtaining permits due to the inability of MBMO to
    finalize regulatory and procedural improvements. MBMO has been more
    than willing to seize opportunities for regulatory reform (including
    two matters that are pending; one of these has been pending for nearly
    four years), but MBMO has been too short of staff to conclude these
    efforts.
        This additional funding will allow MBMO to hire two full-time
    permit evaluators and a national permits coordinator, streamline the
    permitting process, revise guidelines to a plain-language format, and
    complete regulatory revisions.
              u.s. fish and wildlife service, division of refuges
        The application of scientific informationis critical to sound
    resource management. When BRD was created, all the research-graded
    scientists were transferred from the DOI resource management agencies.
    In many public land units, such as the National Wildlife Refuges, there
    are no scientists who can apply research findings to resource
    management. BRD scientists do provide technical assistance, but it is
    unrealistic to expect the small number of BRD scientists to be able to
    provide substantial assistance to the hundreds of federal and state
    wildlife refuges, parks, and other public lands. Therefore, it is
    necessary to have ``management scientists'' based on these public
    lands. We support the requested increase of $5.34 million that will put
    a total of 39 full-time employees, including biologists, hydrologists,
    and botanists on National Wildlife Refuges for wildlife management
    projects. We also support the requested increase of $5.03 million that
    will add 36 full-time scientific personnel for habitat management
    projects. These increases are needed to allow FWS to comply with the
    directive of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
    1997 to ``ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
    environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of
    present and future generations of Americans.''
                              usda forest service
        The Ornithological Council is generally supportive of the Forest
    Service's requested increase of $37.2 million for forest and rangeland
    research. Proper management of forest and rangeland resources is
    dependent upon scientific information. The administration's overall
    request supports a rigorous, well-balanced program to obtain that
    information. We are particularly supportive of the requested increases
    for research pertaining to:
      --threatened, endangered, and sensitive species ($10 million)
      --non-native invasive species ($5 million)
      --inventory and monitoring ($4 million)
      --global climate change ($6 million)
        Finally, we recommend that the 12 percent decrease in the rangeland
    and grassland ecology research program be reversed in fiscal year 2000
    ($271,000) and supplemented by an additional 6 percent ($139,000) to
    account for two years of inflation, for total funding of $2.66 million.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Holly E. Hazard, Executive Director, Doris Day
                                 Animal League
        The Doris Day Animal League is a non-profit, member supported
    national animal advocacy organization located in Washington, D.C. On
    behalf of our 278,000 members and supporters, we respectfully present
    to the subcommittee our concerns about the Wild Horse and Burro Program
    (the Program) as managed by the Bureau of Land Management (the Bureau).
        In 1971, Congress charged the Bureau with preserving America's wild
    horses via passage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. The Act declares
    that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the
    historic and pioneer spirit of the West . . . [who] shall be protected
    from capture, branding, harassment or death.''
        We are gravely concerned that the Bureau is failing to fulfill this
    mandate, and instead is engaging in scientifically and ecologically
    questionable practices, under the guise of multiple-use land
    management, which heavily favor private ranching interests over the
    protection of our nation's wild horses. Further, we are concerned that
    the Bureau is aware of the Program's shortcomings, but is unwilling or
    unable to conduct a candid review of its Program, due to threats of
    legal action from private ranchers who wish to keep their livestock on
    Bureau lands.
        While it is true that the Bureau has reduced the number of
    livestock allowed on some of its land in recent years, the overall
    picture is one that gives preference to private ranching interests. The
    systematic removal of horses and burros from the range over the past
    several decades has depleted the nation's wild horse herds from 303 to
    approximately 186, and herd areas continue to be ``zeroed out''.
    Although no solid figures are forthcoming from the Bureau, the ratio of
    cattle to wild horses on Bureau land is estimated at 50:1. This means
    there are millions of cows and at best, thousands of horses.
        There has been much debate on the ``overpopulation'' of wild horses
    and burros on Bureau managed lands, particularly in Nevada, where the
    Bureau estimates 21,946 horses live. Because the ``appropriate
    management level'' for Nevada has been set at 13,042, the Bureau
    asserts it must round up and remove approximately 8,904 ``excess''
    horses. However, the ``appropriate management level'' is a
    fundamentally subjective figure established in the context of a system
    which is strongly influenced by ranching interests, and which is used
    to justify the removal of wild horses so that a disproportionately
    large number of privately owned cattle may remain on public lands. In
    fact, one Bureau employee admitted that the ``appropriate management
    level'' for horses could be increased in certain areas without causing
    damage to the range, but the Bureau will not do so, for fear of legal
    retaliation by ranchers.
        While some claim that it would be economically devastating to
    reduce the number of livestock on public lands so that more wild horses
    could remain in the wild, it should be noted that less than 3 percent
    of American beef is produced from federal rangelands. Further,
    livestock grazing on federal lands contributes less than 1 percent to
    annual incomes in Western states. In contrast, the highly subsidized
    grazing permit system by which ranchers graze their livestock on public
    lands costs American taxpayers approximately $50 million every year.
        Compounding these issues is the public's lack of trust in the
    Bureau and its policies. At the core of this mistrust is the absence of
    good information and data with which the Bureau might reassure its
    constituents that it is acting in the best interest of all involved.
    Not only has the Bureau been unable to provide figures on the numbers
    of cattle and wild horses on its land, but there is even a question as
    to how many ``herd management areas'' are under the Bureau's
    jurisdiction. Roundups of wild horses are being conducted in the
    absence of current population data and environmental assessments, and
    there is a lack of suitable homes to which gathered horses may be
    adopted. Under current law, the availability of these homes is a
    prerequisite to any roundup, yet the roundups continue as horses
    languish in holding facilities with no hope of a permanent home.
        In short, the Bureau is spending millions of taxpayers dollars
    every year on a program which is based on entrenched ideologies and
    arbitrary assumptions, not facts. Such practices do not engender the
    good faith of the American people. Failure to regain the public's trust
    on this issue may ultimately result in calls for the program to be
    released from federal control to the states, a move which would surely
    lead to the demise of the wild horse.
        We understand that the Bureau is in a difficult position where it
    must appease a diverse group of interested parties. However, until the
    Bureau is willing to invest the time and resources in gathering good
    data with which to reassure its constituents that its policies are
    sound, both ranchers and wild horse advocates will continue to suspect
    that the Bureau favors ``the other side'', a situation which detracts
    from the good work of the Bureau. We, therefore, propose that the
    following language be included in the fiscal year 2000 Department of
    Interior Appropriations Act:
        ``Wild Horse and Burro Program--The appropriations herein shall be
    used for program, herd, and habitat management, including: (1) herd
    population and distribution censuses; and (2) range assessment and
    management; and (3) habitat restoration and improvement; and (4)
    adoption compliance monitoring. Further, roundups of excess wild horses
    and burros from the range shall be based on data no more than three
    years old, and also shall be subject to the potential availability of
    appropriate homes to which the animals may be adopted.''
        We ask this Congress to ensure that our own government is not
    perpetuating a regulatory system which will ultimately lead to the
    elimination of the very animals it has been charged to protect.
    America's wild horses are our national heritage and treasure, and must
    be treated as such. Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

                    United States Fish and Wildlife Service
          Prepared Statement of the American Sportsfishing Association
        This American Sportfishing Association (ASA) statement addresses
    the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S.
    Forest Service (USES). Of specific interest to ASA are the FWS programs
    dealing with federal fish hatcheries, and anadromous fish restoration
    including fish passage and relicensing of hydroelectric dams. We are
    also concerned with the Fisheries Management programs within the BLM,
    as well as the USFS's Inland and Anadromous Fisheries Habitat
    Management programs.
        ASA is a non-profit trade association whose nearly 500 members
    include fishing tackle manufacturers, boat builders, state fish and
    wildlife agencies, angler organizations, sportfishing retailers, and
    the outdoor media. For over 50 years, ASA and its predecessor
    organizations have promoted the conservation of fisheries resources and
    environmental measures that improve the aquatic environment in order to
    ensure the enjoyment of healthy fisheries by America's more than 50
    million anglers.
        In this time of tight Federal budgets and concern for the interests
    of the American taxpayer, it is important to note that when it comes to
    the management of our nation's aquatic resources, the sport fishing
    industry strongly supports the principal of user pays--user benefits.
    Anglers currently contribute $500 million each year in fishing license
    fees to state fishery management agencies and another $250 million in
    special federal excise taxes and duties on fishing goods and taxes on
    boat fuel. These federal user fees flow through the Aquatic Resources
    Trust Fund. Thus, anglers directly pay for much of the fishery
    management in the country. In addition, according to the Bureau of the
    Census surveys, over $3 billion is generated each year in federal
    income taxes from the 1.2 million jobs directly associated with
    sportfishing activities. These angler-generated federal Treasury
    receipts are noted in the context of the fact that 800 million acres of
    the United States are federal lands. This land base, with its
    associated lakes, streams, rivers and estuaries, supports a large
    proportion of this recreational and economic activity. Growth in this
    economic sector is dependent upon proper stewardship of the habitats
    and natural resources managed by federal agencies. With this
    understanding, ASA applauds the modest budget increases sought in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget and requests Congressional support for these
    efforts. For a few items, we seek Congressional support for amounts
    exceeding the Administration's request.
         fiscal year 2000 u.s. fish and wildlife service budget request
        Fisheries--National Fish Hatchery System.--Over many decades of
    guiding Federal water development projects, Congress has dependably
    authorized mitigation facilities and activities to replace lost natural
    fisheries. The premise has been that federally-funded activities that
    impair naturally sustaining fisheries to provide unrelated societal
    benefits such as hydropower and flood protection, must be mitigated.
    Congress has frequently relied, at least in part, on the use of fish
    production technology. This responsibility has fallen to the FWS's
    National Fish Hatchery System. Without the mitigatory hatchery
    activities public recreation valued at $5 billion annually would be
    seriously jeopardized. In addition, the Fish Hatchery System assists in
    the restoration of imperiled fish species and in restoring
    interjurisdictional fisheries, such as those in the Great Lakes. Over
    the last several years, the FWS has engaged in a careful review of its
    hatchery facilities and has transferred or closed those facilities not
    fulfilling priority federal obligations.
        Today, this system of federal facilities is in poor and declining
    condition. The FWS's hatchery program has a conservative backlog of
    maintenance work totalling $218 million, an 86 percent increase over
    last year's already forbidding figure of $117 million. The conservative
    $218 million backlog for hatcheries includes $97 million in deferred
    maintenance. This backlog is not a list of ``like to do things''.
    Rather, the backlog in maintenance and construction is having direct
    impacts upon the quantity and quality of the fisheries resources being
    produced. To characterize the extent of the problem, the FWS has $800
    million in hatchery assets. An annual maintenance budget of $10.2
    million, as requested in the FWS in fiscal year 2000, equals just over
    one percent of assets. Industry standards run two to four percent just
    to maintain facilities, not to retire maintenance backlogs. This
    request represents a $0.25 million decrease from the 1999 appropriation
    for hatchery maintenance.
        For another perspective on the hatchery maintenance and
    construction backlog, one should review private industry facility care
    standards. One standard industry condition index is known as the
    facilities condition index (FCI). This industry measurement is simply
    derived by dividing the maintenance and construction backlog by total
    asset value. In the case of the FWS hatchery system, this index equals
    27 percent. In the corporate world, anything over 10 percent is
    considered to be in poor condition.
        It would take an additional investment of $72 million to bring the
    hatcheries to an FCI of 10. In fiscal year 1999, the FWS was allotted
    $7.4 million to undertake these deferred maintenance projects, reducing
    the critical needs by about 9 percent. Meanwhile, maintenance
    requirements over the last year nearly doubled, resulting in a
    substantial net increase in maintenance backlog. In spite of this dire
    situation, the FWS has requested $250,000 less for deferred maintenance
    funding in fiscal year 2000. In addition, no increase was requested for
    annual maintenance. We warned that an appropriation in the amount
    sought last year by the FWS would result in even greater financial
    backlogs in future years. Unfortunately, these predictions have become
    manifest. Therefore, ASH requests Congress to provide $15 million to
    begin to address the top priority construction maintenance backlog at
    the National Fish Hatchery System.
        In addition to the facility care request, it should be noted that
    even greater production demands are being placed upon the system. This
    is true for both the quantity and quality of the fish being produced.
    For example, the proposed Atlantic salmon and Southwest ecosystem
    restoration programs will require extensive use of cultured species.
    These increasing production requirements necessitate an increase in
    hatchery operations funding. The one million dollar proposed increase
    is welcomed as the operating budget for the Federal Fish Hatchery
    System has been essentially flat for many years. However, to take a
    good step in restoring operational capacity of these facilities, ASA
    requests an additional $10 million for hatchery product scoping,
    evaluation, and for increased production.
        Fisheries--Anadromous Fish Management.--The FWS is engaged in
    important anadromous fisheries restoration and management work. For
    most of these programs, the FWS has asked for the same funding as
    appropriated in fiscal year 1999. We applaud the $600,000 increase for
    Atlantic salmon restoration and the addition of $900,000 to support
    fish passage work. In the next 15 years, the licenses for over 550
    hydropower dams will expire. When these dams were built years ago, few
    measures were taken to protect fish and wildlife, including in far too
    many cases, inadequate or no provisions for fish passage. The
    relicensing process now underway will provide a unique opportunity for
    the FWS to include fishery safeguards in the new licenses. Legally-
    mandated hydropower dam relicensing activities constitutes a great
    burden, but also an enormous opportunity, for fisheries resources.
    Considering the enormous workload now faced by the FWS with power
    facility relicensing through FERC, the requested increase of $900,000
    may well not be fully adequate. While the additional $1.7 million
    allocated for FERC relicensing will help, to take full advantage of the
    fish passage opportunities associated with relicensing, ASA would
    request a minimum of $3.2 million in new funding dedicated for fish
    passage work and recommends a total of $9.8 million for anadromous fish
    management.
        Fisheries--Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance.--Although, the
    FWS is seeking to double its budget for aquatic nuisance species (ANS)
    management, we fear that this is inadequate to address this growing
    problem. Introductions of exotic species have had significant effects
    on native fish populations. According to the Office of Technology
    Assessment, exotic species have directly contributed to the listing of
    44 species of fish as threatened or endangered. Not only do exotic fish
    compete directly with native fish for resources, but exotic plants and
    animals also degrade critical native fish habitat. We applaud FWS for
    taking a leading role in ANS management. However, we foresee
    increasingly larger sums of money having to be spent on future control
    and remediation of new introductions and species already present. For
    example, since 1980, over $120 million in Federal and state funds have
    been spent on controlling exotic aquatic plants in Florida alone. We
    urge a greater allocation of funds aimed at preventative measures such
    as outreach programs and implementation of state and regional ANS
    management plans. ASA requests an additional $5 million be directed to
    carry out ANS preventative measures.
        The $700,000 sought for southwest ecosystem restoration will
    provide for increased riparian fish habitat through voluntary
    cooperation with local stakeholders. We fully endorse this community,
    incentives driven approach. Restoration acts along the Mississippi
    River basin, including fish passage structures and revegetation of
    river and stream banks, are also worthy of the $275,000 increase over
    fiscal year 1999. These new requests totalling an increase in $3.75
    million, plus the additional $5 million for ANS, and the Fish and
    Wildlife Management Assistance full request of just over $16 million,
    are fully supported by ASA.
                   fiscal year 2000 bureau of land management
        Recreational fishing is a major activity on public lands managed by
    BLM, resulting in approximately 400 million angler days and generating
    nearly $200 million annually in economic benefits. Because the public
    lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management provide so many
    opportunities to America's recreational anglers, ASA strongly supports
    the President's budget request for an additional $4.3 million over
    fiscal year 1999 enacted level for the Bureau in fiscal year 2000. We
    have the greatest interest in the following areas:
        Fisheries Management.--BLM manages 174,000 miles of fishable
    streams and 2.6 million acres of fishable lakes and reservoirs. In
    order to manage these fishery resources, the President requests $10.5
    million in fiscal year 2000 for fisheries management, a very modest
    increase of $979,000 over fiscal year 1999's enacted level. Management
    activities focus on the maintenance and restoration of habitat for both
    anadromous and resident species. Challenge cost share programs
    constitute a major portion of this effort. Programs such as Bring Back
    the Natives, provide direct angler benefits by increasing habitat for
    native species and through access improvement projects. Most of the
    roughly $1 million increase for fiscal year 2000 is tied to three
    specific programs: (1) Tundra to Tropics, (2) FERCHydro Power
    Relicensing, and (3) the Clean Water Action Plan. These efforts will
    develop better water quality assessment capabilities in Alaska, offer
    opportunities to provide for increased fish passage, and improve
    fishery habitat. Despite the increases, funds for these three programs
    are only half of what is required according to agency prepared
    opportunity documents.
        Threatened and Endangered Species.--The President has requested
    $18.9 million in fiscal year 2000 for threatened and endangered
    species, roughly the same amount as requested the previous year. With
    the requested funding level, the Bureau will restore riparian habitat
    which should directly impact coho salmon, Lahontan cutthroat, and
    desert pupfish among others. However, according to BLM field office
    funding needs, the current budget comes up short $400,000 for
    anadromous fisheries and $730,000 short for recreational fisheries
    management. An additional $4 million is requested by the BLM field
    offices for special status aquatic species.
        Livestock Permit Renewal.--The Bureau has requested an additional
    $2.5 million to address the large number of grazing permits/leases that
    expire in 2000. These permits must be reauthorized in the coming years
    in order to fulfill BLM's NEPA requirements. Failure to fully support
    this measure will mean greater numbers of permits to review in future
    years and will open the Bureau to litigation, thus compounding the
    already formidable task. For fishery interests, this translates into
    less attention being focused on critical fisheries issues. Fishery
    habitat has been adversely affected by inappropriate grazing through
    increased sedimentation, vegetation loss, and riparian erosion. These
    new permit renewals afford BLM the opportunity to ensure that land use
    practices are in-line with environmental quality standards. ASA
    strongly encourages Congressional support for this much needed increase
    to the livestock permit renewal program.
        Standard and Guidelines Implementation.--ASA fully supports the new
    BLM standards and guidelines that promote wise stewardship of
    rangelands. These locally developed standards and guidelines, which
    call for improvements in watershed and riparian management, will help
    to protect and restore valuable fishery habitat. As such, we would like
    to see these standards and guidelines implemented as quickly as
    possible. Therefore, ASA supports the $1.8 million to be spent on
    standards and guidelines implementation.
        BLM Fish and Wildlife Staffing.--We are very concerned that at
    current staffing levels, the Bureau and its field staff will be unable
    to meet the program and statutory requirements it must meet. At current
    staff levels, biologists are often forced to divide their time between
    on the ground, program implementation efforts and other program
    requirements, which may or may not provide direct fish and wildlife
    benefits. Evaluations, by BLM, of staffing needs have shown that the
    Bureau is lacking in staff to accomplish program goals. A recent work
    force evaluation showed that with its current level of staffing in
    fisheries, BLM is staffed at only 50 percent of its 1993 identified
    need level. At this staff level, the Bureau is only meeting
    approximately half of its identified programmatic needs on an annual
    basis.
        Another indicator of the chronic work force problem sheds light on
    the great need for increased staffing, particularly in the fisheries
    program; there is a total of 65 fisheries biologists to manage all
    aquatic resources on BLM land, at that level there is one biologist to
    manage approximately 3,000 stream miles and 30,000 acres of lake. Some
    states have no fishery biologists at all, which has directly led to the
    deplorable state of a great number of these fisheries.
        This staff deficiency will become especially pronounced in the
    upcoming year as BLM must address a significant backlog of grazing
    permits and reauthorize FERC hydropower dams, both of which will divert
    staff away from critical fishery needs. It is imperative that BLM be
    provided both the adequate staff and additional operating funds needed
    to implement its base programs if it is to be effective in managing
    aquatic resources on public lands which support both fish populations
    and the sportfishing opportunities they offer. In order to begin to
    address the critical shortfall in staffing, ASA urges that new staff
    positions and associated operating funds be appropriated for BLM field
    positions.
              fiscal year 2000 u.s. forest service budget request
        National Forest System--Inland and Anadromous Fisheries Habitat
    Management.--Of the various federal landholders, the USFS is the
    largest provider of public outdoor recreation. This recreation can have
    a significant economic impact. It was recently estimated at nearly $110
    billion annually. For recreational fishing, we estimate that 10 million
    freshwater anglers fish each year on USFS lands. This activity results
    in over $8.5 billion in annual economic activity and supports over
    94,000 full-time jobs. ASA enthusiastically supports the President's
    proposed increase of 37 percent over fast year's USFS budget.
        The $31 million proposed for anadromous fisheries management and
    the $26 million for inland fisheries are tied to several key
    initiatives which include improving user access and recreational
    facilities, protecting threatened and endangered species, and restoring
    degraded habitat and water flows. These significant increases over last
    year's budget will help the USFS continue to improve it's management of
    the 2.3 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs as well as the
    197,000 miles of perennial stream on national forest lands. We believe
    that these projects supported by the funding increases are necessary to
    offset the lack of significant progress made on fishery habitat in the
    past five years when USFS budgets have remained fairly static.
        Road Maintenance.--Finally, ASA is deeply concerned over the
    rapidly declining condition of the road system on USFS lands.
    Currently, there is an $8 billion backlog on road maintenance. Aquatic
    resources are being seriously damaged by sedimentation that flows off
    of these roads. We note, and strongly support the Service's request for
    an additional $22. 6 million for road maintenance and decommissioning.
                                    summary
        We have the opportunity to create new jobs in tourism and
    manufacturing sectors of the sportfishing industry. This potential can
    be realized by improving management of our federal lands and, in the
    process, creating more sportfishing opportunities from improvements in
    our aquatic resources. Mr. Chairman, it is paramount that we continue
    to invest in these programs to provide the basis for our future
    economic strength, and to benefit the millions of Americans who enjoy
    water-based recreational activities.
                                     ______

               Letter From Roger Simmons, Consul General, Canada
                                            Seattle, WA, April 9, 1999.
    Hon. Slade Gorton,
    Chairman, Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Gorton: As the Pacific Northwest begins to implement
    new strategies and programs for the recovery of endangered Pacific
    salmon and steelhead, Canada stands ready to help.
        I am pleased to submit as public testimony to your 7 April, 1999
    Field Hearing a study by Dr. Marvin Shaffer, natural resource economist
    and consultant to the Government of Canada. Dr. Shaffer and his team
    have analysed data for a number of Pacific salmon stocks and conclude
    that reducing the ocean harvest of salmon is proportionately as
    important, and in some cases more important, than in-river efforts to
    improve habitat, productivity and survival.
        Shaffer's work lends scientific weight to a simple point:
    successful salmon recovery will require significant, sustained
    reductions in harvest as well as the recovery and protection of
    habitat. Without a new Canadian-U.S. agreement on harvest, hundreds of
    millions of dollars spent on habitat may never produce the desired
    result-more fish returning to spawn in our rivers and streams. Better
    harvest management must be an integral part of any comprehensive, cost-
    effective salmon recovery effort.
        The Georgia Basin/Puget Sound region faces a significant challenge
    as we seek to restore the wild salmon, and in every challenge there is
    an opportunity. This is an opportunity for our two countries to put a
    contentious issue behind us and work together toward a future of ever
    greater cooperation.
                Sincerely yours,
                                                 Roger Simmons,
                                                        Consul General.

                                 [News Release]

        Canada-U.S. Agreement Under Pacific Salmon Treaty Key to Salmon
                                    Recovery
        Ottawa/Seattle/Washington.--Canada's Minister of Fisheries and
    Oceans, David Anderson, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd
    Axworthy, today released a report prepared by natural resource
    economist Marvin Chaffer which concludes that sustained reductions in
    salmon ocean harvests are as important for salmon recovery as in-river
    programs to improve salmon productivity and survival. The report also
    identifies Canada-United States agreements under the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty (PST) as the principal means for achieving long-term control
    over salmon interceptions.
        ``The report makes it clear that successful salmon conservation
    requires both the benefits of in-river habitat rehabilitation and
    effective harvest management,'' said Mr. Anderson. ``This study
    reinforces the need for Canada and the U.S. to work together to find a
    cooperative approach to conservation and the better management of
    salmon stocks for the future of Pacific salmon stocks from Alaska to
    Northern California.''
        ``The report provides more evidence that a Canada-U.S. agreement on
    Pacific salmon harvest arrangements is crucial to salmon conservation
    all along the West Coast,'' said Minister Axworthy. ``Canada and U.S.
    officials continue to work toward a long-term, coastwide agreement on
    conservation and fair sharing of Pacific salmon. I look forward to
    reviewing the progress with U.S. Secretary of State Albright at our
    next meeting in April.''
        The report, Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Efforts and the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty, was commissioned by the Canadian Government last
    year to provide an independent analysis of the relative importance of
    harvest management and freshwater productivity for conserving salmon.
    Release of the study today comes at a time of increasing concern about
    conservation of Pacific salmon on the West Coast of Canada and the
    United States.
        Attached is an Executive Summary of the Shaffer Report. The entire
    Report is available on the Department of Foreign Affairs and
    International Trade website at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca./communic/
    Reports/shaffe__e.htm
        The Consulate would be pleased to arrange interviews with Dr.
    Shaffer.
                               executive summary
        This study concludes that sustained reductions in ocean harvest of
    endangered Pacific salmon stocks are proportionately as important, in
    some cases more important for salmon recovery than costly in-river
    programs to improve habitat, productivity and survival.
        The Pacific Northwest is currently investing an extraordinary
    amount--over $500 million U.S. per year--for salmon recovery. With more
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing pending and new program reviews,
    this amount could readily double to over one billion per year, or more,
    in the near future.
        Salmon recovery efforts to date have concentrated almost
    exclusively on in-river programs. A clear implication of this study is
    that harvesting control, which is orders of magnitude less costly, is
    as important and potentially effective for salmon recovery.
        A large percentage of Pacific Northwest salmon are vulnerable to
    fishing effort in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries. Historically,
    exploitation in these fisheries has generally exceeded that in the
    southern U.S. Measures to control, on a sustained long term basis,
    interception of endangered Pacific Northwest salmon in these fisheries
    are critically important to the success of recovery efforts. They
    should be an integral part of any comprehensive, cost-effective salmon
    recovery program. Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations provide the
    principal means for achieving long term control of interceptions.

        Note: Marvin Shaffer (Ph. D. Economics) has been a consulting
    economist for the past two decades. He is also a former CEO of the
    British Columbia Transportation Authority and negotiator for British
    Columbia on the power benefits owed to B.C. under the Columbia River
    Treaty.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Ken Poynter, Executive Director, Native American
                            Fish & Wildlife Society
        Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Committee Members: My name is Ken
    Poynter, Executive Director of the Native American Fish & Wildlife
    Society (Society) and an enrolled member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe of
    Maine. I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Society, for the
    opportunity to provide testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on
    the Interior. I will be requesting appropriations from the Department
    of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Wildlife & Parks
    budget (under Other Recurring Programs) for continued funding at the
    organization's fiscal year 1999 level of $488,000.
        The Society is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the
    sound management and prudent use of tribal fish and wildlife resources.
    The organization serves as a network among tribes throughout the
    country, including Alaska and provides training and technical
    assistance to tribes in natural resource enhancement, planning,
    research and management.
        The Society includes a membership of over 200 tribes, which
    includes 63 Alaskan Native villages and non-profit corporations, as
    well as over 1,900 individual members and numerous regional Commissions
    and Native organizations who are supportive of tribal fish and wildlife
    development and of the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society. All
    Society members share the common goal of protecting tribal sovereignty
    in the management and use of fish and wildlife resources.
        Due to our effective method of providing technical assistance,
    periodic trainings, educational opportunities, information disbursement
    and the general support provided to our members and non-members alike,
    the Society has achieved a strong and diverse level of support. An
    obvious measure that emphasizes the increased recognition, reliance and
    support that the organization is experiencing is evident by the
    unprecedented growth in memberships over the past twelve months. Tribal
    memberships have increased 54 percent since April 1998, increasing from
    136 member tribes to the current number of 204. Individual memberships
    have increased 58 percent in the same period going from approximately
    1,200 to over 1,900 at this writing. Our substantial support and pro-
    active programs attest to the positive impact the organization has made
    in Indian Country, including Alaska. It is important to mention, and
    please note for the record, due to our large tribal membership base,
    the funding received through the federal appropriations process serves,
    at a minimum, 204 separate tribal governments on an annual basis.
        Over the past twelve months, the Society has provided technical
    services and assistance to over 200 tribes, 25 non-governmental
    organizations, 20 states and 14 different federal agencies in the areas
    of fish and wildlife management, education and environmental
    protection. Seven regional conferences, including one in Alaska, are
    held annually in conjunction with associated regional specific
    technical work group meetings. In addition to the regional conferences,
    the Society holds an annual national conference. The national meeting
    offers a forum for attendees to address pertinent national issues,
    participate in relevant work related sessions and an opportunity to
    expand their individual networks. It also provides Conservation Law
    Enforcement personnel in attendance the opportunity to participate in a
    forty-hour in-service training.
        In addition to the above listed benefits and regular Society
    events, the organization sponsored numerous training sessions and
    natural resource related workshops throughout the country. These
    Society supported training sessions have become a mainstay of the
    organization and are a good example of our effort to assist Native
    resource management endeavors and address an unmet need. These funded
    education sessions provide Native resource managers, as well as
    others:, opportunities to learn new management skills and techniques or
    refresh old ones and represent, in most cases, the only occasion
    available to foster their knowledge.
        These training sessions are identified and scheduled regionally by
    Society members. This method of identifying and scheduling trainings
    allows members to conduct sessions that they feel are most pertinent to
    their needs and held at the most convenient time and location. As a
    result of utilizing this form of training identification, sessions tend
    to be regional specific and collectively diverse. For example, the
    following list represents the natural resource management sessions
    conducted in the last twelve month period: Fisheries Management
    Workshop, Environmental and Water Resources Management? Native Species
    Management, Federal Funding and Technical Assistance Opportunities,
    Hazardous Materials First Responder Awareness Level Training,
    Endangered Species Act, Diseases of Importance in Southeastern
    Wildlife, Noxious Weed Control Methods, Range Management, Fisheries
    Management Workshop, Lake and River Electro-fishing Techniques, Fishery
    Sampling Techniques, Water Quality Assessment, Micro-invertebrate
    Surveys in Fisheries, Livestock Disease Intrusion, Tribal Big Game
    Commission Workshop, SO 3206 (Endangered Species Act) and the US Fish &
    Wildlife Service Native American Policy, Habitat Restoration and
    Enhancement, Eco-cultural Tourism, Elk Ranching and Aquatic Nuisance
    Species.
        Due to the fact that protection is such an important aspect of any
    natural resource management plan, the Society has a large number of
    Conservation Law Enforcement personnel as members and supporters.
    Subsequently, this particular group has separate and profession-
    specific training needs and have participated during the last twelve
    month period in the following sessions: Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
    Authority/Non Native-Native American Jurisdictional Issues, Range/
    Firearm Techniques, Eagle Protection Act? The Lacey Act and Tribal
    Codes? Search and Seizure, Range/Firearm Qualification, Interviews and
    Interrogations, Crime Scenes/Collection of Evidence, Road Blocks,
    Covert vs. Overt Operations, Illegal Wildlife Trade, and the Endangered
    Species Act and Environmental Laws. Collectively, over 2,000 people
    participated and benefitted from the training sessions listed above.
        In conjunction with the various Society conducted activities listed
    thus far, four quarterly newsletters (with a circulation of over 1,900
    each), an annual report, promotion publications, informational
    management brochures and other management reports and publications were
    distributed nationwide. In order to maximize the federally appropriated
    funds received by the organization, some of the above listed events,
    publications and benefits were subsidized by forming partnerships and/
    or signing Memorandums of Understanding (MOW) with other entities.
        Currently, the Society has signed a national MOU, as well as one
    regional MOU agreement with the U.S. Forest Service and one regional
    agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the
    organization anticipates entering into a national MOU with the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
    and a national Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        These co-sponsorships illustrate the organization's Board of
    Directors continued efforts to assist Congress, when and where
    possible, in reducing the federal budget. It is important for the
    Subcommittee to realize that our continued growth, increased support to
    members and tribes and our constant pursuit to develop partnerships and
    cooperative working relationships with other entities is evidence of
    our desire to identify innovative ways to stretch the funds that we are
    allocated. Although the cost of doing business increases on an annual
    basis and we continue to experience unprecedented tribal and individual
    membership growth, we continue to maintain our resolve to not ask
    Congress for additional funds and constantly pursue opportunities to do
    more, year after year, at the same funding level we have received since
    1994.
        The Native American Fish & Wildlife Society represents a wealth of
    experience and information regarding management of fish and wildlife
    resources on Indian lands. Society members embody a diverse group of
    lay people, fishery biologists, wildlife biologists, foresters,
    conservation law enforcement of ricers, and land use managers and
    planners who currently manage tribal land bases throughout the country,
    including Alaska.
        Members of the Society are involved in technical initiatives
    sponsored by the Society, as well as development of tribal technical
    fisheries, wildlife and recreation management initiatives critical to
    the preservation and protection of tribal resources. In addition, the
    Society continues to respond to the needs of its members in the area of
    technical assistance, training and program support.
        The concept of the Society is based on the necessity for an
    organization to assume a leadership role to maintain the technical
    proficiency of tribal fish, wildlife and natural resource programs.
    Because of its organizational structure, the Society is able to
    efficiently respond to specific requests from tribes for technical
    assistance regarding the development, enhancement and wise use of their
    natural resources.
        Collectively, American Indian tribes have a land base of
    approximately 94,000,000 acres, that includes thousands of miles of
    streams and rivers, and 730,000 lakes and impoundments. The wise use
    and management of these vast resources will only ensure that they
    remain intact for many generations to come. Because our work is so
    important, it is essential that we continue to receive funding so that
    we can carry on our goal to empower and improve the general welfare of
    Indian people through charitable, educational, and other fish and
    wildlife related activities.
        The Society is currently the only national Native American
    organization that provides technical assistance to American Indian
    tribes, federal, state and local governments as well as private
    industry to develop and implement sound policies, ordinances,
    regulations, and laws to protect, preserve, conserve and prudently use
    and manage fish, wildlife and other natural resources. The organization
    continues to develop pro-active budgets year after year to assist
    tribes in their awesome responsibility to adequately manage the
    substantial natural resources in their care as listed above.
        The Society continues to be appreciative of the broad, on-going,
    support we have and especially for the funding received for fiscal year
    1999. To further illustrate both the support and the recognized
    necessity for the continued existence of the Society, I feel it
    necessary, for the record, to recapitulate the unprecedented and
    bipartisan support we received back in fiscal year 1995. That year, the
    Society was one of many federally funded entities that automatically
    received over a 50 percent cut in their federal appropriation and the
    only organization that had a full reinstatement of the initial
    requested amount by both the House and Senate. The continued funding at
    the restored $488,000.00 level each year since is further proof of the
    ongoing support we have from Congress and the dollar value it places on
    the beneficial services we continue to provide.
        Once again, our intent is not to ask for additional funds to meet
    the increased costs of providing the programs we have developed, but to
    express our appreciation to the Subcommittee and our supporters for the
    faith they continue to show in our ability to accomplish our stated
    goals. We would also like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
    to continue our important work while we assist our newly created
    Foundation in raising the 10 million dollar goal we have set for the
    permanent endowment that will eventually enable us to be self-
    sustaining and not reliant on federal funding. On behalf of the
    organization, I would like to reiterate, and remind, the Society's
    promise to the Subcommittee of our commitment, and diligent effort, to
    work with our Foundation Board of Trustees in securing the permanent
    endowment in as timely manner as possible.
        Our contention at this time, and until we reach our goal of self
    sufficiency, is that Congress should view the federal funds
    appropriated to the Society as an investment which will be offering a
    return in the future via a planned small grants program to augment
    tribal natural resource management efforts. It is crucial that the
    Society continue to receive our current level of funding so that our
    important work with tribes, states, federal agencies and the private
    sector is not disrupted or diminished while we continue to work towards
    self sufficiency.
        To reiterate our request to the Appropriations Subcommittee on the
    Interior, the Society is requesting a Total of $488,000.00 for fiscal
    year 2000.
        In addition, the Society encourages legislation that allows tribes
    to participate in Federal Aid Funding and including tribes in any
    proposed future legislation addressing the Federal Aid program.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Mary Beth Beetham, Senior Associate, Defenders of
                                    Wildlife
        On behalf of our nearly 300,000 members and supporters Defenders
    thanks you for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning our
    fiscal year 2000 appropriations priorities. Although we come before you
    to request funding, we fully understand the constraints of the
    Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. We continue to work aggressively--as
    we have for the past two years--with the Public Lands Funding
    Initiative, a broad coalition of more than 100 conservation and
    recreation groups, to increase the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation so
    that funding is available to protect our nation's refuges, parks,
    forests, other public lands, wildlife, fish and plants.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        Endangered Species: Defenders urges full funding of the President's
    fiscal year 2000 $114.9 million request for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's (FWS) four main endangered species accounts: Candidate
    Conservation ($8.3 million), Listing ($7.5 million), Recovery ($56.7
    million), Consultation ($37.3 million), and the ESA Landowner Incentive
    Program $5 million). We also urge full funding of the $80 million
    request for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, discussed under
    Lands Legacy, below.
        The Candidate Conservation increase is needed for status surveys on
    approximately 300 species, development of an additional 50 Candidate
    Conservation Agreements (CCAs) in fiscal year 2000, and necessary
    monitoring of CCAs to ensure biological improvement of covered species
    and reduction of threats. Although properly designed CCAs can
    contribute to species conservation, Defenders opposes their improper
    use to preclude scientifically-based listing determinations.
        The Listing increase is needed to process the more than 200
    additional candidates and proposed species expected to require the
    Act's protection in fiscal year 2000. Moreover, 90 percent of listed
    species still do not have critical habitat designation (even though
    required by law). We continue to oppose the Administration's request
    for statutory language to cap the listing program and their new request
    to cap funding for critical habitat activities, which we believe is an
    attempt to avoid court ordered listing decisions and critical habitat
    designations.
        The Consultation increase will help address the growing Section 7
    consultation workload (more than 40,000 actions projected for fiscal
    year 2000) and continually expanding use of Habitat Conservation Plans
    (HCPs--more than 500 new and ongoing HCPs projected for fiscal year
    2000) as well as provide some funding to ensure that both consultations
    and HCPs are based on sound science and subject to monitoring for
    effectiveness and compliance. While Defenders is not opposing funding
    for new HCPs, we continue to believe that the current FWS HCP process
    has significant problems requiring regulatory modifications. A major
    study by 119 independent scientists released two months ago drew the
    same conclusion reached by a 1998 Defenders report on HCPs. Led by Dr.
    Peter Kareiva at the University of Washington, the group developed a
    massive detailed database and found that many HCPs are seriously flawed
    because critical information is missing, and because HCPs do not take a
    precautionary approach for protecting species when that information is
    missing. Without needed modifications, HCPs are likely to exacerbate
    threats to listed species.
        The Recovery request will help address the backlog of more than 300
    species without recovery plans as well as recovery implementation and
    monitoring for the more than 1300 listed species expected by the end of
    fiscal year 2000, a 42 percent increase just since 1995. Recovery is
    the goal of the Act yet recovery implementation continues to be
    critically underfunded. According to FWS estimates, less than 20
    percent of listed species have had even 25 percent of their recovery
    objectives met.
        The following are Defenders' highest priories for specific recovery
    programs. To help restore the wolf to the northeast, $100,000 is needed
    for preparation of NE recovery plan and economic and other necessary
    feasibility studies. For the successful red wolf program in North
    Carolina, $850,000 will support continued captive propagation,
    monitoring, and establishment of a new recovery site. FWS needs
    $796,000 to continue Mexican wolf restoration which will include
    providing funding assistance to the White Mountain Apache Tribe for a
    full time tribal biologist; funding for field biologists to both AZ and
    NM Fish & Game Depts; increased outreach in high-use areas; and
    increased law enforcement made necessary by numerous wolf killings. For
    the Northern Rockies wolf recovery program, $1.1 million will allow
    monitoring, public education, and cooperative agreements with the Nez
    Perce tribe and states (which will receive most of the FWS allocation),
    while $80,000 (NPS) will pay for management of the program in
    Yellowstone National Park. At least $500,000 is necessary for recovery
    efforts in WY, MT, SD and AZ for the endangered black-footed ferret,
    thought to be extinct in the wild except for reintroduced populations.
    Finally, $1.02 million is needed for the grizzly recovery program which
    covers 30,000 square miles in four states and includes an EIS on
    grizzly recovery in the North Cascades. Successful reintroduction of
    threatened grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem of central ID
    and W. MT could increase grizzly bear numbers and range in the lower 48
    states by nearly one third. Defenders opposed language in the fiscal
    year 1999 bill prohibiting reintroductions and will work to ensure that
    $115,000 of the grizzly recovery budget will be will be used for
    initiation of reintroductions in fiscal year 2000.
        Migratory birds.--FWS is responsible for 58 game and 778 non-game
    migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
    1918. At the very least, we support the President's fiscal year 2000
    budget request of $21.8 million for critical activities such as
    conservation plan implementation, monitoring, and use of scientific
    information in designing management strategies. Projects funded with
    increases will include: monitoring population trends of nearly 500
    species for which insufficient information exists; development of
    regional management plans for more than 50 species of migratory
    shorebirds; work with landowners in the southwest to benefit grassland
    and riparian birds (e.g. southwestern willow flycatcher, Bells vireo,
    and grassland sparrows); and collaborative efforts with partners to
    benefit forest breeding birds in the lower Mississippi River Basin.
        International Affairs.--Under General Administration, Defenders
    endorses the request for International Affairs which helps support U.S.
    international leadership in the conservation of wildlife and
    biodiversity, particularly through implementation of the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). We suggest an
    additional enhancement of $400,000 (split evenly between International
    Wildlife Trade/International Wildlife Conservation Laws and technical
    assistance within that line item) for personnel and/or contracts to
    enable FWS to assist the CITES Secretariat and Parties and those of
    related agreements in developing improved systems and standards to
    prevent international conflicts of interest and for improving
    cooperation and efficiency in law enforcement.
        National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Operations and
    Maintenance.--We deeply appreciate the Subcommittee's support for the
    Refuge System and its leadership in providing significant fiscal year
    1998 and fiscal year 1999 O&M increases. Defenders continues to be a
    proactive member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
    (CARE), a diverse coalition of 18 environmental, hunting, fishing, and
    recreation groups. CARE has reviewed FWS expenditures of the fiscal
    year 1998 increases and has concluded that these funds were used as
    intended, i.e. to reduce the overwhelming O&M backlog. Unfortunately,
    due to the magnitude and duration of the O&M funding deficit, continued
    increases will be needed for at least the next four years to address
    the $722 million in operations needs and the $526 million maintenance
    backlog. CARE has updated its Refuge restoration plan which recommends
    yearly increases of $65 million from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year
    2003, necessary to bring the Refuge System into a state of health by
    its 100th anniversary. We therefore ask an additional $37.7 million
    over the President's request to meet the CARE fiscal year 2000 target
    of which $36.35 million should be focused on operations increases which
    have not kept pace with those for maintenance. Operations increases are
    critically needed to carry out the requirements of the new National
    Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and to implement the directives
    of the first ever National Wildlife Refuge System conference, including
    inventory and monitoring (which requires additional biological staff);
    implementation of new compatibility regulations that depend heavily on
    the best available science; and the development of Comprehensive
    Conservation Plans. The recent Fish and Wildlife Service document
    ``Biological Needs Assessment, National Wildlife Refuge System Division
    of Refuges, July 1998'' documents the severe shortage in biological
    staffing. Examples of projects that will not be funded even at the
    President's level include: expansion of endangered masked bobwhite
    quail introduction at Buenos Aires NWR (AZ); monitoring and protection
    of threatened piping plover nesting areas at Des Lacs NWR (ND); and
    restoration of bottomland hardwood forests to benefit neotropical
    songbirds at Patoka River NWR (IN).
                              u.s. forest service
        Major priorities for Defenders are funding increases for two
    extremely important areas that support species conservation in the FS
    budget: research and habitat management for threatened, endangered, and
    sensitive (TE&S) species. Sufficient funding for these programs will be
    key to implementing the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists
    which emphasize the need for species research, assessment, and
    monitoring.
        Defenders strongly supports the important $10 million increase
    requested to fund TE&S research under Forest and Rangeland Research
    Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air program. Currently, this program is so
    grossly underfunded that 70 percent of meager TE&S research funds are
    invested in fewer than 10 species or groups of species. Of the 2500
    sensitive species on FS lands, FS scientists are studying only 54; vast
    information gaps exist for a whole array of sensitive species such as
    forest carnivores (lynx, wolverine, marten, fisher), bats, plants,
    amphibians, mussels, and crayfish. Just a few examples of critical
    research projects to be supported by this funding follow. The Southern
    Research Station will investigate factors responsible for successful
    reproduction of freshwater mussels which are experiencing an extinction
    crisis (over 70 percent of 297 native taxa imperiled). The Rocky
    Mountain Research Station will develop monitoring techniques and
    habitat management guidelines to maintain prey base for lynx,
    wolverine, and fisher (given that lynx is likely to be listed in the
    near future this information is critical to provide basis for a
    recovery plan). To benefit coho, chinook, and steelhead, cutthroat,
    redband and bull trout, the Pacific Northwest Station will develop
    landscape level conservation options including priorities for
    restoration and protection of habitat. And the Pacific Southwest
    station will examine effects of introduced fish and estrogen-mimicking
    compounds on the northern red legged frog and seven associated species.
        Defenders also strongly urges funding of the President's requested
    $5 million increase for TE&S Habitat Management under the Wildlife and
    Fisheries Habitat Management line item. This investment in TE&S habitat
    is cost effective. As the Committee of Scientists recently reported,
    habitats on FS lands serve as important ecological anchors;
    conservation and recovery efforts consequently have benefits that
    extend far beyond FS lands to state and private lands. The increase
    will: support a 10 percent increase in survey and monitoring efforts in
    both terrestrial and aquatic habitats; support restoration of 19,000
    acres of terrestrial and 36 miles of stream habitat; and fund
    development of conservation strategies and agreements for an additional
    31 sensitive species and implementation of recovery plans for 7
    additional T&E species. A 10 percent increase in public use benefits is
    expected, including increased viewing and interpretation opportunities.
    Unfortunately, even at the requested level, only one-third of the
    identified funding need (approx. $97 million) for TE&S habitat
    management will be met. Projects that will go unfunded at the request
    level include: reduction of road density in grizzly habitat on Lolo NF
    (MT) to reduce disturbance and displacement of bears; removal of heavy
    metal contamination from the Little Blackfoot River to benefit
    cutthroat and bull trout on Helena NF (MT); and surveying followed by
    habitat improvement projects such as prescribed burning to benefit
    prairie fringed orchid, prairie chickens and other sensitive species on
    Custer NF and Sheyenne National Grassland (ND).
              u.s. geological survey biological resources division
        Defenders continues to believe that BRD has never recovered from
    funding reductions imposed upon it in fiscal year 1996 and subsequent
    years. Even at fiscal year 1999 funding levels of $162.5 million, BRD
    is still below its fiscal year 1995 base level of $166 million which,
    adjusted for inflation, would now total approximately $200 million.
    USGS has also made several budget restructuring proposals for fiscal
    year 2000 including a new budget activity, Integrated Science, that
    would fund DOI agency science priorities and place-based studies. The
    move towards integrated science is the right step in addressing
    ecosystem level interdisciplinary--and many other--research needs.
    However, we are concerned that $13.3 million of the proposed $47.7
    million for Integrated Science is coming out of the BRD base, and that
    some increases for fiscal year 2000 projects are being funded out of
    decreases in important research just initiated in fiscal year 1999,
    e.g. a $5.5 million decrease for Species and Habitat Protection and
    Clean Water and Watershed Restoration. We therefore recommend that BRD
    retain in its base the $13.3 million proposed for transfer and that an
    increase of $13.3 million in new money be provided to compensate for
    the funding that would have come from BRD base to meet the Integrated
    Science request level of $47.7 million. We are also concerned that
    certain details about the Integrated Science activity, including
    methods for determining priorities and allocating funding, have not
    been made clear and must be made so as soon as possible; moreover, USGS
    needs to commit to meeting DOI agency needs and the Director must be
    held accountable for doing so.
        Defenders maintains its strong support for the Gap Analysis Program
    (GAP), a collaborative effort involving 48 states and more than 500
    business, non-profit, state, local, and Federal agency organizations to
    map our nation's biological diversity and areas currently managed for
    its protection. We also continue to believe that insufficient resources
    have been made available for efficient transfer of GAP data to users
    and integration into on-the-ground conservation planning and therefore
    strongly support the requested BRD increases of $3 million ($10 million
    USGS-wide) for National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community/Federal
    Information Partnerships (C/FIPS) and $1 million increase for National
    Biological Information Infrastructure. In particular, the C/FIPS would
    help states deliver GAP data and help people use the information in
    making daily decisions about land use. We note that in order for the
    data to be useful, it must be in a form conducive to informing
    decisions about management and policy.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Defenders endorses and wishes to highlight funding for one worthy
    program under BIA Resources Management, the Cheyenne River Sioux (SD)
    Prairie Management Plan, part of a cooperative multi-agency effort and
    the tribe's response to requirements to recover the black-footed
    ferret. Phase I of the project, now completed, has improved the prairie
    ecosystem and decreased overgrazing on the Cheyenne River Sioux
    Reservation. The goals of Phase II, now being initiated, include:
    black-footed ferret reintroduction, prairie dog ecosystem management,
    range management, bison management, and public education. The tribe
    needs $2.5 million in fiscal year 2000 and $2 million/yr for 4
    subsequent years to implement Phase II of the Plan.
          lands legacy/land and water conservation fund (multi-agency)
        Defenders strongly supports full funding of the President's Lands
    Legacy Initiative, a total of approx. $800 million under the
    Subcommittee's jurisdiction: $413 for federal LWCF (DOI/FS), $80
    million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund (FWS); $150 million
    for grants to states and others for land acquisition (DOI); $50 million
    for state open space planning grants (DOI); $50 million for Forest
    Legacy (FS); $40 million for urban forestry (FS); $10 million for smart
    growth revolving loan program (FS); and $4 million for Urban Parks and
    Recreation Recovery (NPS). The election last November demonstrated that
    Americans readily support expanded protection of open space and habitat
    and creation of more outdoor recreation opportunities, as Lands Legacy
    proposes. Voters approved 72 percent of 240 state and local ballot
    initiatives designed to provide funding for these purposes. We believe
    Congress needs to step forward and provide federal funding to mirror
    and assist these state and local efforts--redeeming the original
    promise to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund which is
    currently owed $12 billion in unallocated funding. Defenders is proud
    to be on the board of Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation (AHR),
    an organization--representing thousands of LWCF stakeholder across the
    nation including urban, state, recreation, industry, and environmental
    groups--dedicated to revitalizing the LWCF.
        We wish to highlight several components of Lands Legacy. First, the
    $413 million for federal land acquisition will move forward a number of
    high priority projects in our Refuges, Forests, Parks, and BLM-managed
    special areas, such as Pinhook Swamp, a corridor linkage between
    Northwest Florida's Osceola National Forest and Georgia's Okeefenokee
    National Wildlife Refuge. Second, the substantial increase in funding
    for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund will give states badly
    needed resources to move forward with candidate conservation, recovery,
    and HCP efforts, for land acquisition to support both HCPs and species
    recovery. But even the requested $20 million increase for HCP land
    acquisition falls far short of the projected current yearly need of
    approx. $140 million that would benefit hundreds of species such as
    Karner blue butterfly, Florida scrub jays, Key deer, and marbled
    murrelets. Third, the $150 million for land acquisition grants is a
    needed step toward revitalizing the State-side of LWCF and will give
    states and local entities help in preserving dwindling vestiges of
    habitat and greenspace. And fourth, open space planning ($50 million)
    is a critically needed tool to help states address the threat of sprawl
    more cost effectively and strategically; comprehensive conservation of
    habitat must be an integral component of any such open space planning
    process.
        Finally, we would like to offer an excellent example of a
    comprehensive, forward looking effort, strongly supported by Defenders,
    that could be funded under Lands Legacy. A broad cross-section of
    interests in eastern Pima County (AZ), one of the fastest growing
    regions in the U.S., has joined together to request funding for both
    Saguaro National Park West expansion (approved by Congress in 1994
    without a funding source) and Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation
    Plan (SDCP). For fiscal year 2000, at least $10 million is needed to
    complete the Park expansion and another $40 million to help launch
    SDCP. This request includes acquisition of critical habitat for the
    endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl by supplementing state and
    local funds for habitat acquisition in and around remnant old-growth
    ironwood forests northwest of Tucson. Up-front acquisition of this
    sensitive habitat would contribute to a pro-active private-public
    partnership to conserve this area of rich ecological and scientific
    value and jumpstart SDCP's development and implementation.
                     everglades restoration (multi-agency)
        As national co-chair of the Everglades Coalition, Defenders
    strongly supports full funding for Florida Everglades Watershed
    Restoration, a total of $151.5 million (FWS $11 million, NPS $131.5
    million, USGS $8.6 million, and BIA $0.4 million). Everglades land
    acquisition, research, construction and management are investments into
    the future of the economy and environment of South Florida. These funds
    are vital for carrying out the first phases of the most ambitious and
    critical ecosystem restoration project in history. Defenders feels that
    the conceptual plan for the project provides a flexible and effective
    blueprint for restoration. In recent weeks, improvements have been made
    which accelerate achievement of ecosystem benefits. We applaud those
    changes and congratulate the federal and state partners for their
    willingness to incorporate our suggestions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Interior
    and Related Agencies Subcommittee on several funding items of great
    importance to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its
    6.7 million members and constituents. As the largest animal protection
    organization in the country, we urge the Committee to address these
    priority issues in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
                             endangered species act
        The HSUS supports a strong, efficient, and effective Endangered
    Species Act (ESA) and the full measure of the Administration's $195
    million request. Adequate funding early in the protection process--
    before more drastic measures are necessary for species survival--will
    facilitate the fulfillment of the ESA's crucial mandate and reduce
    potential conflicts. Full funding is necessary for scientific
    assessments of wildlife populations, purchase of critical habitat
    threatened by development, recovery planning, on-the-ground
    conservation projects, and improved enforcement to curtail the illegal
    trade in endangered species parts.
     rhino and tiger conservation act, african elephant conservation act,
                      and asian elephant conservation act
        The HSUS supports the Administration's request of $1 million for
    each of three crucial foreign endangered species programs: The Rhino
    and Tiger Conservation Act, The African Elephant Conservation Act, and
    The Asian Elephant Conservation Act. The HSUS is very concerned about
    previous incidents and future opportunities for funds from these
    conservation programs to be allocated to promote trophy hunting, trade
    in animal parts, and other consumptive uses--including live capture for
    trade, captive breeding, and entertainment to meet the demand of the
    public display industry--under the guise of conservation for these
    endangered animals.
           law enforcement division of the fish and wildlife service
        After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third
    most lucrative smuggling enterprise in this country. New technology is
    essential if law enforcement is to have any hope of effectively
    enforcing the nation's endangered species trade laws. To that end, The
    HSUS requests an additional $12.764 million above the Administration's
    request of $39.95 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law
    Enforcement Division. Of that amount, $2.764 million is specifically
    requested for the Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics Laboratory for the
    purchase of additional equipment and forensic science personnel.
    Adequate support for law enforcement and the forensics lab is essential
    to discourage the widespread trade in exotic animals and protect viable
    populations of wildlife before they are pushed to the brink of
    extinction.
                        land and water conservation fund
        The HSUS strongly recommends that the Committee restore full
    funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including funding for
    the state grants program which has not received any money since 1995.
    LWCF has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven million
    acres of parkland and open space and the development of more than
    37,000 parks and recreation projects. It was an inspired act of
    Congress that created LWCF and a visionary step to make $900 million in
    Outer Continental Shelf Revenues available annually for this critical
    fund. Providing full funding for LWCF's federal and stateside programs
    this year will make a tremendous difference in protecting habitat and
    resources that are vital to animals and people.
            wild horse and burro program/fertility control research
        Although progress has been made, there remain serious deficiencies
    in the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro program. We
    believe that this is an extremely important and valuable program.
    America's wild horses are a public trust greatly beloved by the
    American people, and any indication that these animals are being
    threatened or mistreated generates loud public outcry. The HSUS
    recommends that the Administration's budget request of $19.97 million
    for the Wild Horse and Burro program be fully funded. Within the
    program, however, we recommend that $400,000 be shifted from the
    adoption program to on-the-ground management of horses and their range,
    especially wild horse monitoring, range monitoring, and habitat
    restoration. Restoring the ecological health and productivity of the
    public lands is a goal on which everyone can agree.
        The BLM currently spends more than $1,100 for each wild horse that
    is removed from public lands and processed through the Adopt-a-Horse
    program. Even at that level of spending, the Bureau cannot guarantee
    humane treatment and adequate care to the 7,000 or more wild horses
    adopted each year. The HSUS believes that fertility control, if used as
    part of a scientifically-based and equitable range management plan, can
    reduce human-caused stress on wild horses, improve care for animals
    entering the adoption program, and reduce the costs of wild horse and
    burro management.
        Funds appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 1993-1998 have
    brought immunocontraception to the brink of practical application to
    western wild horses. Field tests in 1992 and 1995 led to a one shot
    immunocontraceptive vaccine that reduced pregnancy rates in treated
    animals for one year by at least 85 percent. Five new field tests were
    begun in 1997-99, with the objectives of making the vaccine easier to
    use in the field, extending the length of vaccine efficacy to two
    years, and testing models that predict how much contraception reduces
    horse population growth. Since every foal not born potentially saves
    the Bureau over $1,100 in adoption costs, the vaccine is highly
    economical, even in the research phase. Delays in releasing funds over
    the past four years have significantly slowed research progress.
    Consequently, we request $350,000 in fiscal year 2000 to support
    further research in and initial application of wild horse
    immunocontraception. These funds would allow the continuation of the
    five field tests and put in place the means to begin management
    application. Each application reduces the number of horses that enter
    the Adopt-a-Horse program, and thereby recovers much of the cost of the
    research.
        The HSUS also offers the following recommendations for
    modifications to the Wild Horse and Burro Program that will help
    alleviate the problems that currently trouble it.
        (1) Stop the elimination of horse populations from established herd
    areas, stop local reductions in populations that threaten the viability
    of many herds, and enlarge wild horse populations where the land can
    sustain them. Where they are necessary, wild horse removals should be
    part of a comprehensive plan to restore range condition, and should be
    matched by real removals of livestock.
        (2) Assure the public a voice in wild horse management decisions.
    The BLM has been using the ``full force and effect'' regulation, which
    was primarily intended for emergencies, to effectively remove the
    public's voice in decisions on wild horse management.
        (3) Implement the recommendations of the Pierson and Culp reports,
    and the recommendations emerging from the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory
    Council.
        (4) Use qualified volunteers where possible, and enhance the system
    for screening potential adopters, performing post-adoption compliance
    checks, and investigating what factors lead to successful, long-term
    adoptions.
        These reforms will benefit the program in general, the animals
    themselves, and the public. The HSUS looks forward to continuing to
    work with the BLM on this issue.
                animal control initiative on native reservations
        The HSUS urges the Committee to designate $750,000 of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs' Law Enforcement Initiative (or some other account the
    Committee deems appropriate) for a project to improve animal control
    services on several Native American reservations where public health
    and safety are currently jeopardized by the lack of such services. Over
    the last decade, some Native American Nations have developed animal
    control programs and ordinances, but their struggling programs are
    severely underfunded. Other Native American Nations have no animal
    control programs at all. Poor and non-existent animal control programs
    pose not only serious problems for the animals on reservations, but
    also immediate public health and safety threats to the human residents.
        Dog bites have become a serious hazard, particularly for children.
    More than 4.7 million individuals are bitten by dogs each year in the
    United States, leading to injuries and transmission of rabies and other
    diseases. The problem is particularly acute in Native American Nations.
    A 1996 report by Navajo Nation Animal Control stated that, ``in 1990,
    the Indian Health Service announced that approximately 2,000
    individuals were treated for dog bites'' on that reservation. A
    fatality associated with a dog attack occurred last month on the
    Blackfeet reservation, and dog attacks on other reservations have led
    to severe injuries and death for children and adults over the past
    several years.
        Recognizing this problem, The HSUS has begun providing direct
    services to several Native Nations. Since 1991, HSUS has worked with
    the Navajo Nation, and during 1998, HSUS worked with local animal
    control agencies to deliver basic humane services, including spaying/
    neutering and vaccinations, to more than a dozen reservations in
    Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, providing over 45 days of
    clinics. In 1999, HSUS hopes to expand its program to provide some
    assistance to more than 20 reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South
    Dakota, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
    and Utah.
        However, to address the full range of public health issues
    associated with free-roaming, proliferating, and unvaccinated canine
    populations on Native lands, and to do so in a way that will achieve
    long term results rather than just providing stopgap aid, federal
    assistance is needed. The funding requested would help several Native
    Nations begin to establish their own effective animal control programs.
    The proposed initiative would include training (workshops for animal
    control personnel about safe animal capture, handling, and
    vaccinations); animal sterilization and other veterinary services;
    humane education (instruction on how to deal with roaming animals,
    proper animal care, and responsible pet ownership); grants to Native
    Nation animal control agencies for facilities improvement or
    construction; and, if appropriate, legislation (helping communities
    develop effective local animal control laws). The requested funding
    could be allocated as follows:
      --$310,000 to provide ``mobile clinic'' services throughout the
            Nations for spaying/neutering and vaccinations. This amount
            would cover at least 75 days of scheduled clinics, including a
            $200 per day honorarium for 3 veterinarians. This honorarium is
            necessary to recruit local veterinarians who could then be
            called upon for annual follow-up services.
      --$270,000 to help establish animal control programs and facilities.
            Less than 10 percent of western Native Nations have formalized
            animal control programs, and even fewer have animal control
            facilities. This funding would be used to train Native
            personnel in safe animal capture and handling, humane
            euthanasia, and how to run an effective shelter. It would also
            be used to assist communities in developing effective animal
            control laws and humane education programs for schoolchildren,
            as well as to develop and print Native American directed
            educational materials on bite prevention and proper animal
            care. And it could help reservations begin building or
            improving their animal care facilities.
      --$100,000 to provide proper equipment for animal control personnel,
            including gloves, nets, cat boxes, leashes, and portable cages,
            and for the spay/neuter clinics, including a portable
            anaesthesia machine, spay packs, surgery tables, instrument
            stands, syringes, needles, pharmaceuticals, and other medical
            supplies.
      --$70,000 to hire two full time Native Nation coordinators, who would
            work exclusively on animal care issues affecting the
            reservations and ensure that the program was running smoothly.
        This initiative would go a long way toward addressing serious
    public health and safety problems associated with animal control on
    reservations, in a way that is humane and effective on a long-term
    basis. The HSUS urges the Committee to make this much-needed modest
    investment.
        Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
    priorities for the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of
    fiscal year 2000. We hope the Committee will be able to accommodate
    these funding requests to address some very pressing problems affecting
    millions of animals in the United States. Thank you for your
    consideration.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Christine Stevens, Secretary, Society for Animal
                             Protective Legislation
        The Society for Animal Protective Legislation requests an increase
    in appropriations of $12.764 million for the Law Enforcement Division
    of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for fiscal year 2000. As major
    criminal activity has increased year by year in the trade of wildlife
    parts and products, it is urgent that the needs of Law Enforcement be
    provided with the tools and the staffing without which the David and
    Goliath nature of the battle will be ceded to the Goliath of organized
    crime.
        I would like to begin by citing the urgent need for new
    technological instruments for the Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory.
        The Triple Quadrupolar Mass Spectrometer will enable the skilled
    scientists and technicians at the laboratory to identify specific
    biological and organic chemicals. Examples of its' diverse power
    include: (1) determining the unique sequence of amino acids which make
    up proteins found in muscle tissues for speedy identification of
    wildlife species and (2) providing the scientists the ability to
    19fingerprint' complex organic chemical mixtures from illegal chemical
    dump sites or oil spills and pinpoint the specific source of the
    materials. (Cost: $250,000 to $300,000)
        A second extremely valuable piece of equipment much needed by the
    Forensics Laboratory is the High Resolution Mass Spectrometer which
    would allow the scientists to look at chemical isotopes from bone,
    feathers, fish scales, mollusk shells, etc. This instrument will allow
    the scientists to estimate time of death as well as determine the
    geographic location the sample came from.
        A good example of its' use for determining where a sample
    originates from is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service case last year
    involving a multi-million dollar Asian pearl industry which used
    illegally harvested endangered shellfish from the Mississippi River.
    These shells were smuggled out of the United States and sold to the
    Asian pearl industry. The shells were then ground up into 19seed
    nuclei' around which artificial pearls form. The High Resolution Mass
    Spectrometer would have allowed scientists to pinpoint the location the
    shells were illegally taken from--even down to a specific river
    drainage, and strengthen the case against the criminals involved.
    (Cost: $750, 000 to $1,000,000)
        The Fourier (pronounced For-E-A) Transform Mass Spectrometer is
    another important detective device which performs macro-molecular
    analysis as well as DNA and protein sequencing. These techniques are
    especially valuable in the analysis of medicinal products purporting to
    contain minute amounts of Rhino horn or Tiger bone powders. Other
    analytical techniques involve rapid species identification based on
    protein differences found in hemoglobin in blood and myoglobin from
    muscle tissue samples. (Cost: $500,000)
        Additionally, the new, powerful tools of DNA analysis in matching
    tissue samples from poaching cases, and in identifications of species
    and species-hybrids are increasingly opening up new areas of forensic
    capability and allowing the scientists to analyze blood and tissue
    evidence that previously could not be processed. These expanded
    capabilities have placed new demands for casework on the Laboratory. To
    keep up with these demands the Lab needs the following instruments:
        Two automated multi-probe work-stations which would allow the
    scientists to place DNA samples through a selected sequence of
    automatic analytical processes. (Cost: $50,000 each)
        Two Cytoflour multi-well plate readers to instantaneously, and
    accurately quantify flourescent-labeled strands of DNA. This will
    provide a precise measurement of the DNA for subsequent analysis.
    (Cost: $22,000 each)
        An ABI 310 capillary electrophoresis DNA sequencer would greatly
    expand the Lab's capability in answering both species and hybrid
    identifications of wildlife. (Cost: $100,000)
        Finally, communications with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Inspectors at
    border ports is vital to the ongoing investigative assistance provided
    by the Lab. One goal to enhance this communication is to place 50,
    state-of-the-art laptop computers in the hands of Wildlife Inspectors
    around the U.S. These computers will allow them to securely connect to
    the Lab using smartcard technology and encryption software to access
    on-going casework, investigative and research data. This technology
    will greatly enhance their investigations and ultimately the service of
    the Lab. (Cost: $150,000)
        The nature of the casework at the Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory has become more complicated and detailed as new
    investigations involving threatened and endangered exotic wildlife
    trade species are initiated. Some of the analytical techniques are
    adaptations from human forensics which are modified and applied to
    wildlife cases. Because of the diversity of evidence found in wildlife
    crime, many other techniques are completely new, cutting edge forensic
    technologies developed from scratch.
        With this changing casework and technology, additional personnel
    are needed. Two senior forensic scientists, 8 forensic specialists and
    2 technicians will greatly assist the mission of the Laboratory.
    (Salaries and benefits $570,000)
        The instruments and personnel needs I have described will
    accomplish two main goals: (1) they will allow scientists to more
    rapidly analyze evidence and speed up the investigative and judicial
    process and, (2) they will greatly assist the scientists in developing
    new forensic techniques to answer the difficult questions--including
    species identifications, cause of death, origin of sample--questions
    involved with the multi-billion dollar world trade in threatened and
    endangered wildlife.
        It is estimated that there are approximately 3000 forensics
    laboratories worldwide, all focused on solving crimes against one
    species-humans. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics Laboratory stands
    as one laboratory whose mission is to solve crimes against the other,
    silent species of the world. Support of this Lab is vital to our
    commitment to the countless generations who follow us and the hope that
    they can enjoy the world's wildlife as we do now.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Ted James, Planning Director, Kern County
       Planning Department; Steven J. Arita, Environmental Coordinator,
      Western States Petroleum Association; Manual Cunha, Jr., President,
       NISEI Farmers League; Les Clark, Vice President, Independent Oil
    Producers Association; and Mike Chase, Endangered Species Coordinator,
                            Kern County Farm Bureau
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley
    Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit
    this statement for the record in support of our funding request for the
    Interior Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000.
        First, the Coalition supports the Department of Interior's fiscal
    year 2000 budget request for the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund--especially funding for HCP land acquisition. The
    Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate maximum funding for
    land acquisition.
        The Coalition's request is supported by the timely need to
    implement the KCVFHCP, which is in the final stages of development and
    expected to be completed within the next 8-10 months. The Coalition
    requests that the Subcommittee appropriate the maximum possible amount
    for this program, so that the funding pool can accommodate our request
    and need. We are confident that the plan's merits and urgency support
    this request.
        Kern County's program is unique from other regions in the nation in
    that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal
    species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the
    continental United States. The region is occupied by 13 wildlife
    species and 14 plant species listed as threatened or endangered under
    federal law. The potential for conflict with the federal ESA is great
    in Kern County because of the extensive agricultural and oil and gas
    production activities which occur. Since Kern County is the top oil
    producing county in the nation and one of the leading agricultural
    counties, potential conflicts with the ESA and their resolution through
    a proactive conservation program has significant national importance.
        In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by federal
    and state endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of
    Understanding was entered into by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Land Management, California Energy Commission, California
    Department of Oil & Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department
    of Fish & Game and Kern County. The participating agencies agreed to
    develop a unified conservation strategy with the goal of providing a
    streamlined and consistent process of complying with State and Federal
    endangered species laws, yet at the same time allow important industry
    activities such as oil and gas, agricultural, ranching, water
    conveyance and other industry activities to continue. Preparation of
    the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of federal, state and
    local government agencies, as well as the oil and gas industry,
    agricultural, utilities and environmental groups.
        Kern County's Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP) is
    one of the largest and most diverse endangered species conservation
    programs under development in the nation encompassing over 3,110 square
    miles. The program embraces many of the conservation approaches that
    have been advocated by the Department of Interior, in that it
    represents a significant departure from traditional endangered species
    conservation programs which utilize prohibitory controls to assure
    conservation of species habitat. Instead, it is based on a system of
    trading habitat credits in an open market. In that regard, the KCVFHCP
    is considered to be a state-of-art conservation plan that will address
    compliance with the ESA for multiple threatened and endangered species.
    This innovative and state of the art system, for the first time,
    provides landowners with real incentives and more importantly, the
    ability to choose how best to manage their own private property.
        The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of its
    request, as well as Subcommittee's support of the Kern County HCP.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Harry Wilde, Sr., Co-Chair, Lower Yukon and
    Gilbert Huntington, Co-Chair Upper Yukon, on Behalf of the Yukon River
                         Drainage Fisheries Association
                                    abstract
        The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA) requests an
    appropriation of $150,000 to operate a public information and education
    campaign concerning the U.S./Canada Yukon River salmon treaty
    negotiations and the operations of the Yukon River Panel. Funds would
    be transferred from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to the YRDFA
    through a Cooperative Agreement entered into under the authority of the
    Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 USC 661-667 (e) (1970)] and
    under the authority of legislation to be introduced later this spring
    reauthorizing the Yukon River Salmon Act.
                                  introduction
        Since 1985 the U.S. and Canada have engaged in annual negotiations
    to conclude a long-term treaty for the management of chinook and fall
    chum that spawn in Canada. During the 1990s there were informal
    agreements on harvest targets and spawning escapements and from
    February 1995 through March 1998, a formal Interim Agreement was in
    place between the two countries. During the 1990s, with the exception
    of the unforeseen salmon crash of 1998, spawning escapements were
    steadily being built back up to agreed-upon levels.
        While management cooperation between the two countries has had some
    success, there is a serious need to improve public information and
    education concerning U.S./Canada Yukon salmon issues to the 15,000
    rural residents living in the 42 different Yukon villages in Alaska.
    All of these villages are extremely isolated, accessible only by small
    plane or riverboat. There are no daily newspapers, limited and poor TV
    reception and only a few scattered public radio stations.
        It is these rural villagers who will be the most affected by an
    eventual treaty with Canada. Salmon, including Canadian-origin chinook
    and fall chum stocks, are the backbone of both their traditional
    subsistence fishery and their small commercial fishery. Decisions
    concerning Canadian-origin stocks have major impacts on how many salmon
    each family may harvest and how much fishing income a commercial
    fisherman might earn. These fishermen must not only be fully informed
    about the ongoing process but must be able to communicate with and
    provide feedback to the U.S. delegation negotiation team (a.k.a, the
    U.S. section of the Yukon River Panel and its Advisory Committee as
    well as agency personnel of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S.
    Department of State and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
        Unless the residents and fishermen of the Yukon River understand
    the costs and benefits of the Panel process and a future proposed
    treaty with Canada, it will be very difficult for United States Panel
    members and negotiators to move forward on negotiations. Without
    adequate public information and participation mistrust will build
    between the rank-and-file and the people who represent them.
        a u.s./canada yukon river salmon information & education program
        In 1998 and now in 1999, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has, at
    the direction of the U.S. section of the Panel and the negotation
    delegation, entered into cooperative agreements with YRDFA in the
    amounts of $10,000 and $50,000, respectively, to assist the agencies in
    educating the public about the ongoing negotiations with Canada. Funds
    were, and are being, utilized to pay for an annual 4-day fishermen's
    meeting and for informational newsletters distributed to nearly 3,000
    recipients.
        For fiscal year 2000 the YRDFA would use the funds to expand its
    comprehensive public information & education program in consultation
    with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish
    & Game. Potential activities include: Quarterly newsletter and periodic
    mailings distributed to:
      --1,500 subsistence salmon fishing households
      --950 commercial salmon fishing permit holders
      --100 contacts in state and federal agencies
      --42 ANCSA village corporations
      --42 IRA/Traditional village councils
      --12 salmon processing/smoking operations
      --8 media outlets
      --15-minute radio programs distributed on Alaska Public Radio Network
            Fishermen's meetings in selected villages in the lower, middle
            and upper Yukon
        Through such a comprehensive effort the fishermen and women of the
    Yukon will be fully informed and involved in working with the Yukon
    River Panel and the various agencies in charting the future of the
    Yukon River.
        Anticipated annual expenditures of a fully-funded Information &
    Education Program are as follows:

    YRDFA staff support...........................................   $50,000
    Fishermen's Meetings (travel & per diem)......................    60,000
    Radio programs (contractual)..................................    16,000
    Newsletters (production & distribution).......................    24,000

             the yukon river drainage fisheries association (yrdfa)
        The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association was formed in 1990
    to unite lower river and upper river commercial and subsistence
    fishermen of the Yukon River and its tributaries within Alaska. As such
    it represents Yup'ik Eskimo, Athabascan Indians and white homesteaders.
    It is governed by a 16-member Board of Directors with seats apportioned
    according to the six (6) commercial fishing management districts of the
    Yukon, the coastal villages, the Koyukuk River tributary. and the Yukon
    Flats A primary goal of the YRDFA is to seek consensus solutions to the
    various management, conservation and allocation issues on this vast and
    complex river system.
        The YRDFA hosts a 4-day Annual Meeting in a different village each
    year and publishes an occasional newsletter. The Association also
    sponsors ad hoc village meetings concerning local and subregional
    issues. It works on a regular basis with biologists of the Alaska
    Department of Fish & Game and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service
    to craft management plans that help to assure sustained yield of
    various stocks while meeting subsistence harvest needs and providing
    for commercial harvests. YRDFA then presents these consensus plans for
    formal regulatory approval by the Alaska State Board of Fisheries.
        The YRDFA is the only organization that works with and unites all
    the diverse fishermen on the river. It knows the best ways to
    communicate with and foster the participation of these fishermen.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony.
                                     ______

                             National Park Service

        Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
        The Governing Board of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
    appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony in support of a $5
    million appropriation to the Bureau of Land Management for acquisitions
    in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. The Conservancy was
    established by the California Legislature in 1991 to acquire and hold
    in trust open space in the mountainous lands surrounding the Coachella
    Valley, and to provide for the public's enjoyment and use of those
    lands consistent with the protection of cultural, scientific, scenic,
    and wildlife resources.
        The Scenic Area is the mountain range that forms the backdrop of
    the Coachella Valley cities, including Palm Springs, Cathedral City,
    Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta. The mountains
    rise quite steeply from the desert floor to an alpine environment atop
    San Jacinto Peak at 10,800 feet. The resource values in the mountains
    run the gamut from scenic and wildlife to cultural and recreational.
    The Scenic Area is of great importance to the Coachella Valley's
    economy, and hundreds of thousands of people who come to the desert
    each year for vacation enjoy our mountains, and, in so doing,
    contribute to the local economy.
        The Conservancy would like to inform you about two partnerships.
    The first partnership is the local, state, and federal partnership that
    has been working for years to protect the National Scenic Area. The
    attached chart shows the magnitude of this partnership. Since 1990 the
    state of California has provided over $20 million for acquisition and
    the local communities nearly $10 million, including $3.9 million since
    January 1st for a key acquisition in Andreas Canyon. BLM has
    contributed over $11 million in LWCF money in that time period. This is
    a partnership that you can be proud of having supported, and you can be
    confident that your continued support will again leverage state and
    local contributions. With the listing of the peninsular bighorn sheep
    as an endangered species last year, we are in ever-greater need of
    acquisition funding to protect the National Scenic Area, which is home
    to the magnificent bighorn sheep. Land acquisition activities are
    accelerating in an effort to avert conflicts over the bighorn sheep and
    to enhance protection for the species.
        The Conservancy and BLM are currently talking with nine key
    landowners about the acquisition of their property. Together their
    holdings total 13,830 acres, the total value of which is in the range
    of $19 to $26 million. Five of these landowners are committed willing
    sellers at an estimated cost of $3.4 million, and the BLM's remaining
    fiscal year 1999 LWCF money will initiate these acquisitions.
    Appraisals are currently being conducted on these properties. Of the
    other four landowners, three have indicated a strong interest in
    selling, contingent upon the purchase price being determined and how
    quickly the acquisitions could occur. The value of their land is in
    excess of $10 million. The final landowner has not yet indicated
    whether or not he wants to sell. The requested $5 million appropriation
    would complete the pending projects and enable BLM to initiate one or
    more of the other willing seller acquisitions. The Conservancy is
    optimistic that state funds will be available in the coming fiscal year
    to provide a significant state contribution toward those acquisitions.
        The second partnership is the southern California NCCP cooperative
    effort. Representatives from NCCP efforts in five counties meet monthly
    to share information and provide mutual support for each other's
    efforts. Collectively, these NCCP plans comprise the core of a
    bioregional conservation plan for all of southern California. This is
    certainly one of, if not the most, most comprehensive and proactive
    planning efforts in the nation. We also request your support for the
    funding needs of our NCCP partners, namely, $10 million in acquisition
    funds for the San Diego Wildlife Refuge, $2 million in acquisition
    funds for Otay Mountain, and $2 million in NCCP planning funds. To meet
    other needs in the area, as well as in other areas of the country, we
    support $80 in Cooperative Endangered Species Act funding and full
    funding for the LWCF program.
        In conclusion, the Conservancy would like to update you on some of
    the successful acquisition efforts in the Scenic Area. We are pleased
    to report the completion of a partnership acquisition by the BLM and
    the City of Palm Desert, in which each contributed $1.25 million to
    acquire the C.C. Myers property. Also, as alluded to earlier, the
    County of Riverside recently committed $1.9 million and the Agua
    Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians committed $2 million to acquire the
    Andreas Cove Development Company property at the mouth of Andreas
    Canyon. The Conservancy purchased 91 acres and the Friends of the
    Desert Mountains have 213 acres in escrow, using Adopt an Acre program
    contributions from community members and corporate sponsors.
        Land and Water Conservation fund money has been well spent in the
    Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area because of these
    partnerships. The money is an investment in more than land. It is an
    investment in a model of local, state, and federal agencies working
    successfully together, and with diverse private sector groups. The
    Coachella Valley has an excellent history of such cooperative efforts
    in land acquisition and in preparing successful plans to deal with
    endangered species issues. That cooperation is alive and well today; in
    fact it is healthier than ever. An LWCF appropriation is a key
    ingredient in the recipe for the success we have had and are continuing
    to enjoy. The Conservancy hopes this Subcommittee will support an LWCF
    appropriation as you have in the past.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers
        The National Conference requests a withdrawal from the Historic
    Preservation Fund of $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Historic       Compare FY
                                                                          FY 2000     preservation's    1999 actual
                                                      FY 1999 actual  administration     request at    with FY 2000
                                                                           budget      $150 million       request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heritage grants:
        Restoration grants (thru States/CLGs).......  ..............  ..............         $43.478        +$43.478
        HBCU........................................          $8.422         $15.022          15.022          +6.600
        Save Americas Treasures.....................          30.000          30.000          30.000  ..............
        NHL Grants..................................  ..............           1.500           1.500          +1.500
        Congressional add-ons for 8 properties......           8.750  ..............  ..............          -8.750
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Heritage grants subtotal..................          47.172          46.522          90.000         +42.828
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Core Programs at the State and local levels.....          31.394          31.394          50.000         +18.606
    Tribal Historic Preservation Offices andtribal             2.596           2.596          10.000          +7.404
     grants.........................................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Grand Total...............................          81.162          80.512         150.000         +68.838
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of the National Conference testimony is to focus on the
    request for the national historic pres ervation program operation
    through the State Historic Preservation Offices: $93.478 million
    ($43.478 million for restoration grants and $50 million for core
    activities).
                                    why now?
        The strength of the United States' economy, the elimination of the
    deficit, and the willingness of the Administration and the Congress, on
    a bipartisan basis, to consider increasing the outlays from the
    Historic Preservation and Land and Water Conservation Funds has
    encouraged the National Conference to ask for what the Nation's
    historic resources need. For two decades, the Historic Preservation
    Fund has operated at a fraction of its potential because the off shore
    oil lease revenues were used to balance the budget. Since financial
    conditions have improved, the off shore oil lease revenues can and
    should be di rected to their intended purpose.
             the nation's heritage is more than the federal estate
        The heritage of the United States exists beyond the boundaries of
    the national park system and the larger federal estate. The heritage of
    the United States also exists beyond museum settings and park
    preserves. Comprehensive conservation of our his tory requires the
    comprehensive approach embodied in the National Historic Preservation
    Act.
        National policy must provide for stewardship of heritage both in
    the parks and in the rest of the nation. Federally owned and non-
    federally owned historic places merit equal treatment and equal concern
    and equitable funding.
      states, not federal agencies, accomplish the national preservation
                                    program
        The framers of the national preservation program decided to
    ``hire'' the States to fulfill the provisions of the National Historic
    Preser vation Act. This scheme has an added cost-cutting benefit as the
    States contribute half the expense. When a State Historic Preservation
    Officer recommends a property for nomination to the National Register,
    advises a developer on a rehabilitation, or con sults with a federal
    agency on a project the SHPO is conducting the national preserva tion
    program, is acting for the federal government. Without the SHPOs
    federal employees would bear the responsibility. The Historic
    Preservation Fund allocations to State historic preservation programs
    pay for the federal responsibility for the na tion's heritage, a
    federal responsibility equal to the national parks.
      adverse effects of limited funding: unplanned, unbalanced decisions
        Except for the period under the Heritage Conservation and
    Recreation Service, the broad national preservation program has been
    underfunded. This situation is not without consequences. The chart on
    page one of this testimony graphically illustrates one result. Funding
    for restoration projects has become targeted, categorical, and
    restricted to a narrow applicant pool. This situation undermines the
    goals of the national program including the need to provide opportunity
    and resources to all the diverse manifestations of our heritage, with
    decision making and administration shared with the federal government's
    partners at the State and local level. Advocates for preserving
    endangered sites are frustrated and understandably pursue other ave
    nues including special grants and separate authorizations. Full funding
    of the Historic Preservation Fund will provide equal access to
    resources for all Americans, and for the properties important to all
    Americans, reducing the need for new programs and emergency grants.
        One measure of the current situation is the fact that although the
    National Historic Preservation Act directs the Secretary to expend no
    more than 10 percent of the Historic Preservation Fund in directed
    grants, 60 percent of the fiscal year 1999 Historic Preservation Fund
    was allocated and administered at the federal level.
        In the State offices, the benefits of the national program are
    selectively offered depending upon the resources available. With
    support for the federal program declin ing in adjusted dollars for
    twenty years, hard choices have to be made. Few offices, for example,
    are able to provide assistance to individuals or neighborhoods that
    want to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which is
    the heart of the national program. Those that can afford to hire a
    consultant may succeed, but many worthy sites are not recognized.
    Similarly, while the historic rehabilitation tax credits are a great
    success story, the bulk of our heritage which is not in com mercial use
    needs equal treatment through the matching grants established by the
    Historic Preservation Fund.
        The most expensive consequence of chronic under funding has to do
    with historic sites survey and the coordination of federal activities
    with impacts on his toric places. Under funding has limited
    comprehensive historic site survey coverage. Therefore, federal
    agencies and applicants for federal assistance deter mine, usually
    through consultants, what sites their project will impact. Exacerbat
    ing this situation is the old fashioned methodology for maintaining
    historic site locational information. Limited Historic Preservation
    Fund allocations mean no resources to digitize historic site
    information, creating increased planning periods and project costs.
                             uses of hpf increases
        Increases in Historic Preservation Fund allocations to the national
    preser vation program will go for known historic resource needs. The
    precise definition of these needs is found in National Park Service-
    approved historic preservation plans for each State, developed with
    public participation by the citizens of each State.
        An existing National Park Service formula exists for the allocation
    of ``core programs'' funding among the States. The Park Service allo
    cates Historic Preservation Fund withdrawals over $50 million based on
    a competi tive grants process among the States. Local governments,
    official partners in the national preservation program, will benefit. A
    minimum of 10 percent goes to certified local government as well as
    half of the HPF withdrawal over $65 million. Initial expectations are
    that the competitive grants would focus on restoration grants for
    endangered National Register properties and digitizing inventory
    information.
        The core program increases will support underfunded activities such
    as technical assistance in survey, National Register nominations, and
    enabling more local governments to become official partners in the
    program. The burdens of the existing program on the State Historic
    Preservation Offices are increasing because of growing popularity of
    the programs and further delegation of federal responsi bilities. For
    example, the number of rehabilitation tax credit projects has been
    growing by 15 percent per year. Public education is another high
    priority. Importantly, Historic Preservation Fund increases will allow
    for a major advance in digitizing historic site survey information
    resulting in both better protection for significant properties and
    expedited consultation for federal projects.
                            save america's treasures
        Save America's Treasures grants for fiscal year 2000 should be
    allocated on a competitive basis through the States which have the
    capability to generate match award subgrants in an expeditious manner.
    Further, the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section
    101(e)(3)) is that the Historic Preservation Fund go to States, Indian
    tribes and local govern ments. The Historic Preservation Fund is not
    for federal agency expenses which should be funded through their
    regular budgetary processes (Section 110).
                         historic preservation benefits
        The benefits of the national historic preservation program make
    Historic Preservation Fund ap propriations a sound investment. The
    federal dollar invested in a historic preservation project goes a long
    way. First, it is matched at a 1:2 ratio (based on historic
    experience). Second, it is a one-time federal in vestment. Unlike
    national parks which require on-going federal expenditures in
    perpetuity, the responsibil ity for maintenance and the protection of
    the federal investment rests with the owner. In each case, heri tage is
    preserved. The cost to the federal government, however, is very
    different.
        Historic Preservation Fund dollars are further leveraged by
    programs in the private sector such as the federal historic
    rehabilitation tax credits, administered by the State Historic
    Preservation Officers. Owners of commercial properties on the National
    Register of Historic Places invested $2 billion in their buildings in
    fiscal year 1998 using this program, which ensures that the work
    maintains the historic character of the structure.
        The data and expertise created by the national program may be
    regarded as an ``infrastructure'' for heritage with many potential
    uses, including the economic development opportunities of heritage area
    initiatives, and cultural tourism programs, one of the fastest growing
    indus tries in the world. Quality of life issues are high on the list
    of factors corporations consider when relocat ing, and communities
    successfully include heritage as a strategy in attracting new jobs and
    reasonable growth.
        Participation in the national historic preservation program, when
    adequately funded, is open to everyone and is voluntary. Residents and
    property owners make decisions about their community's future. The
    Historic Preservation Fund gives them the option of having expert
    advice on assessing historic char acter, on alternative preservation
    techniques.
        The national preservation program offers an alternative to exurban
    sprawl by rebuilding and reinvesting in existing communities,
    encouraging people to appreciate the character and benefits of living
    in an historic community. Historic districts, because of the pride and
    interest of residents in their community, are safer and maintain their
    value.
        Non-quantifiable benefits exist as well. Historic neighborhoods and
    business districts are livable places where people want to be. ``New
    urbanists'' in the architecture and planning professions work to re-
    create the scale of historic communities. Celebration in Florida,
    Kentlands in Maryland bringing substantial profits to their developer
    clients.
        Finally, historic preservation provides a real-time education for
    all Americans in the lessons and values of our history. The Historic
    Preservation Fund is the tool box that allows Americans to identify and
    protect that history for now and forever.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Janger, President, Close Up Foundation
        Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is
    Stephen A. Janger and I am president of the Close Up Foundation. It is
    a privilege for me to submit this testimony with regard to our work in
    the Pacific Islands to provide quality civic education experiences for
    students and educators.
        Before I begin to discuss our fiscal year 2000 funding request, I
    want to express, on behalf of all of us at Close Up, our gratitude for
    the support this Subcommittee has shown for the Foundation's efforts to
    enhance and expand civic education opportunities in the Pacific
    Islands. The funding provided by this Subcommittee to the Office of
    Insular Affairs has made it possible for Close Up to reach thousands of
    students and educators. Without the Subcommittee's support, we know we
    would have had to significantly curtail the educational and training
    experiences we have provided Pacific Islanders.
        For the past sixteen years, the Close Up Foundation has been
    involved in a variety of civic education activities in the Pacific
    Islands. With support from Congress, there are now students and
    educators participating from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
    Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), the Federated States of Micronesia
    (FSM), Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of
    Palau. In addition to having a special relationship with the United
    States, the unique global positioning of the Pacific Islands makes it
    critical that citizens in this region have the tools and understanding
    that are necessary to support democratic institutions. Close Up's
    twenty-eight years of conducting civic education programs place us in
    an ideal position to assist Pacific Island entities with education and
    training activities that will foster an interest in and an appreciation
    of the need for informed citizen involvement in the emerging
    democracies of the Pacific region.
        We are aware of the budgetary pressures confronting the
    Subcommittee, but we believe for a relatively small investment of
    federal funds Close Up returns the investment many times over with
    significant contributions to the current and future generations of
    emerging Pacific democracies. Therefore, we respectfully request $1.0
    million in fiscal year 2000 funding for Close Up's Pacific Islands
    programs.
                 close up foundation's pacific islands programs
    Washington high school program
        Although Close Up is much more than students on the Hill, most
    people associate Close Up with civic education programs for high school
    students. Through hard work and considerable support from communities
    across the country, we have experienced tremendous success during the
    last twenty-eight years in providing quality, hands-on, civic education
    experiences to a diverse group of students and educators. Our program
    diversity is exemplified by the participation of Pacific Island
    students and educators. Their presence helps to enhance the experience
    of many of our participants most of whom begin their week with little
    knowledge of people from other regions of the country (and world), only
    to end the week amazed at the similarities, shared interests, and new
    understandings created during their program week.
        For the past several years, we have conducted three Washington High
    School Program options to meet the education needs of the Pacific
    Island participants. Each of the three options included a week in
    Washington on Close Up's program. In response to the desires of Pacific
    educators, we plan to eliminate one of the three program options--the
    Pacific Basin program--and offer two program options in fiscal year
    2000.
        One of the fiscal year 2000 options for the Pacific participants
    includes: a week in Washington on the ``core'' Close Up High School
    Program; a two-day trip to Williamsburg to explore the roots of
    American democracy; a visit to Philadelphia to examine the U.S.
    Constitution, its origin, and its impact on Pacific constituents; and,
    a visit to New York City, where students study the cultural and
    political implications of America's diverse citizenry.
        The other option is the ``core'' Washington High School program
    expanded to eight days. This program was created to respond to an
    approximate 25 percent reduction in funding in fiscal year 1997. Rather
    than significantly reduce the number of students who could participate,
    four Pacific Island entities decided to offer an eight-day program.
    This program has been well received. This program option basically
    provides an extra day and a half for Pacific Island students to work on
    activities specifically devoted to the Pacific Islands and their
    relationship to the U.S. government.
        In preparation for Close Up's current program year, we have been
    offering the three program options from previous years. We learned for
    certain after the first of the year that we would be facing a 33
    percent reduction from the $750,000 we received in fiscal year 1998 (to
    a level of $500,000) for this part of the program. Since program
    planning begins a year ahead of time we felt we must go forward with
    our commitments and offer all three options in fiscal year 1999, even
    if it means fewer participants in each program. Should the Foundation's
    fiscal year 2000 appropriations request be funded, we plan to offer the
    two program options preferred by Pacific educators and increase
    measurably from the fiscal year 1999 level the number of students and
    educators taking part in those programs.
        Each year, the overall program experience reaffirms our commitment
    to provide quality civic education programs to the Pacific Islands. The
    positive voices of appreciation of our programs, heard from every
    participating Island, strengthen our resolve to continue to strive to
    provide these often life transforming opportunities for the students
    and educators of the Pacific Islands.
    Teacher training and teacher institute
        In early 1998, Close Up completed an extensive nine-month civic
    education/social studies needs assessment for the Pacific Islands. A
    consistent theme in both the formal and informal discussions with
    Pacific educators was the need for teacher training. As a result of the
    needs assessment and a follow-up proposal the Foundation submitted to
    the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA), the Foundation was awarded a
    supplemental grant of $231,600 of which $149,600 was allocated for a
    Teacher Training Institute.
        The Foundation conducted a ``Training of Trainers'' Institute in
    early December of 1998. The ``Training of Trainers'' (ToT) included
    forty-three educators from six Pacific entities; six from American
    Samoa, six (6) from CNMI, fifteen (15) from FSM, five (5) from Guam,
    five (5) from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and six (6) from
    the Republic of Palau. From all accounts, the ToT was a huge success.
    One of the participants described the session as the best training
    program he had ever attended. This ToT was the beginning of creating a
    reservoir of educators who can work with others on their islands to
    improve the level of instruction for Pacific Island students.
        In last year's testimony, we expressed the hope that we would
    receive funding enabling us to conduct a ToT. We also stated our belief
    that a second and subsequent ToT would be necessary to reach an
    adequate number of educators. Given the timing of the supplemental
    grant award, the actual dates the 1998 ToT was conducted, and the
    expected reduction in a fiscal year 1999 grant, it is not possible for
    the Foundation to conduct a full ToT Institute in 1999. We continue to
    be, however, firm in our belief that teacher training activities are a
    vital element to building an educational system staffed by quality,
    self-reliant, self-assured educators. In the Pacific Islands, Close Up
    is one of the few groups trying to address this critical need. Should
    we be fortunate enough to receive fiscal year 2000 federal funding, we
    would therefore anticipate allocating some of the funding to teacher
    training activities.
        Although training activities conducted in the Washington area offer
    unique resource advantages, we support the Pacific educators' belief
    that island-specific training conducted ``on-site'' can also be
    productive and useful. Although more limited in scope than other ``off-
    site'' training, there are home field benefits to be derived from this
    training approach. Specifically, it provides an arena where our ToT
    graduate participants can assist in the on-site training, technical
    assistance and evaluation.
    Civic education materials
        Returning to the needs assessment conducted by the Foundation, one
    disconcerting finding was the alarming continuing need for current
    civic education and other materials. Although the specific needs varied
    from island to island, all of the entities had significant needs for
    materials.
        Part of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental grant of $52,000 we
    received is dedicated to helping reduce the shortage of materials in
    the Pacific Islands. Because the timing of the supplemental grant award
    and the ToT Institute, the production and distribution of materials
    will take place in the current fiscal year. Subsequent to discussions
    with staff at the OIA, the timeline for production and dissemination of
    the materials was extended to the first semester of the 1999 academic
    year.
        The Foundation has collaborated with Pacific educators to develop
    island-specific social studies resource books. These books, known as
    the Civic Achievement Award Program (CAAP) books, are designed to
    connect history, government, geography, economics, culture, and current
    events with responsible citizenship. Since these books are tailored
    specifically to the island entities, their additional distribution will
    help mitigate some of the need for civic education materials.
        A second way the Foundation can help alleviate the materials needs
    of the Pacific Islands is to reformulate into a comprehensive text all
    of the CAAP materials for the Pacific region. Funds were provided in
    the fiscal year 1998 supplemental grant for this activity. Work on this
    text is currently underway and this resource book is expected to be
    available for use in the fall semester of 1999. We will continue to
    assess the civic education materials needs in the Pacific to determine
    if supplemental island-specific publications are critically needed.
    Local programs
        Close Up's Washington teacher program enables Pacific teachers to
    return to their islands and use their enhanced professional skills to
    help all of their students--not just those who came to Washington.
    Armed with new classroom skills and confidence, many of these returning
    teachers have worked to develop government studies programs at the
    local level. These programs create a significant multiplier effect of
    learning for their students and their communities. The Foundation uses
    a small amount of the funding it receives to help teachers and other
    community members to develop and conduct these local programs.
        Mr. Chairman, the Close Up Foundation has always considered it a
    privilege to work with students and educators from the Pacific Islands.
    We are proud of the programs we have conducted during the past sixteen
    years, and believe we have had a significant impact on the civic well-
    being of the Pacific Islands. As I stated earlier, we recognize that
    much of our Pacific work would not have been possible without the
    support of this Subcommittee. We believe our plans for fiscal year 2000
    will continue to contribute measurably to the Pacific Islands and to
    the understanding and value Pacific Islanders place on democracy and
    democratic institutions. Therefore, we strongly believe that our work
    continues to justify your support. We would be happy to respond to any
    questions and to provide any additional programmatic or budgetary
    detail. Thank you very much.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California
    Air Resources Board; Barbara Patrick, Member, Board Supervisors of Kern
     County and Member, California Air Resources Board; Manuel Cunha, Jr.,
    President, NISEI Farmers League; Les Clark, Vice President, Independent
       Oil Producers Agency; Catherine H. Reheis, Managing Coordinator,
                      Western States Petroleum Association
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5, we are
    pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
    fiscal year 1999 funding request of $100,000 for the California
    Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
        The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed
    both state and federal clean air standards for small particulate
    matter, designated PM-10/PM-2.5. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act
    Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM-10/PM-2.5 standards
    by December 31, 2001. If the proposed PM-2.5 standards are adopted,
    they would have to be attained 2-3 years later. Attainment of these
    standards requires effective and equitable distribution of pollution
    controls that cannot be determined without a major study of this issue.
        According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing
    research data show that air quality caused by the PM-10/PM-2.5 problem
    has the potential to threaten the health of more than 3 million people
    living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the
    quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and problems associated
    with PM-10/PM-2.5 are better addressed and understood, many industries
    will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing
    natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs
    for a soundly researched solution.
        PM-10/PM-2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other
    sources, and they are a significant problem in the areas that are
    characteristic of much of California. Typical PM-10/PM-2.5 sources are
    dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved roads, and dirt loosened and
    carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural land. Soil erosion
    through wind and other agents also leads to aggravation of PM-10/PM-2.5
    air pollution problems.
        Several aspects of the research are important to federal agencies
    and programs within the purview of the subcommittee's jurisdiction,
    including the Park Service. Based on consultation with federal agency
    officials who work closely with the PM-10/PM-2.5 issue in the San
    Joaquin Valley Region, the Coalition requests funding for the following
    agency:
      --Park Service ($100,000).--The U.S. Park Service have a substantial
            stake in the PM-10/PM-2.5 issue. Park Service officials in the
            California region are concerned about the sources and types of
            PM-10/PM-2.5 particulate matter, including secondary emissions,
            that are coming into park areas from the San Joaquin Valley.
            There is a need for an assessment of the effect of PM-10/PM-2.5
            emissions on different elevations of terrain. The Park Service
            is concerned about the transport of Valley emissions into
            outside areas under Park Service jurisdiction, especially as
            these emissions have an effect on vegetation and visibility in
            park areas. Park Service officials are concerned about the
            possible contribution of prescribed and forest fires on the PM-
            10/PM-2.5 problem, as well as the effect of PM-10/PM-2.5
            particulate matter on human and other animal life, vegetation,
            land management, and area lakes and streams.
        The importance of this study on PM-10/PM-2.5 is underscored by the
    need for more information on how the federal Clean Air Act Amendments
    standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as
    by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities
    contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of
    Title V of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current
    understanding of the amount and impact each source of PM-10/PM-2.5
    actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better
    understanding and more information--which this study would provide--
    industry and government will be unable to develop an effective
    attainment plain and control measures.
        Our Coalition is working diligently to be a part of the effort to
    solve this major problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to
    support research and efforts to deal effectively with what is
    essentially an unfunded federal mandate.
        Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and
    local governmental entities, are attempting to do our part, and we come
    to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair
    federal share of financial support for this important research effort.
    In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study essential to
    the development of an effective attainment plan and effective control
    measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California. This unique
    cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local government,
    as well as private industry, has raised more than $24 million to date
    to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM-10/PM-2.5 air
    quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue continues, and our
    hope is that private industry, federal, state and local governments
    will be able to raise a final $4.6 million this year to complete the
    funding for this important study.
        To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding
    provided through USDA's, DOD's, Interior's and EPA's budgets--a total
    of $13.3 million in federal funding with $200,000 in funding from the
    National Park Service for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. State and
    industry funding has matched this amount virtually dollar for dollar.
        With the planning phase of the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air
    Quality Study complete, a number of significant accomplishments have
    been achieved. These interim products have not only provided guidance
    for completion of the remainder of the Study and crucial information
    for near-term regulatory planning, they have also produced preliminary
    findings which are significant to the Department of Interior's (DOI)
    interests.
        The Study is significant to DOI interests for a number of reasons.
    The San Joaquin Valley experiences some of the most severe PM episodes
    in the nation. The information being collected by the PM study is
    essential for development of sound and cost-effective control plans.
    The potential impacts of emissions from unpaved roads under U.S. Forest
    Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management
    jurisdiction are also a concern, as well as emissions from prescribed
    burns and wildfires. In addition, previous studies have demonstrated
    that significant amounts of fine particles and their precursors from
    the San Joaquin Valley can be transported form the Valley into the
    Sierra Nevada Mountains, impacting sensitive forest areas and reducing
    visibility in national parks. Effective control plans for the San
    Joaquin Valley, based upon the results of the PM study, will help
    address the potential impacts of emissions from sources under the DOI
    jurisdiction and mitigate visibility and forest impacts through the
    reduction of transport from the Valley.
        To this end, the PM study is expending significant resources to
    provide an improved understanding of emission sources within the San
    Joaquin Valley and Sierra Nevada Mountains, and transport both within
    the Valley and into the Sierras. A preliminary field monitoring program
    was conducted during the fall and winter of 1995/96. Extensive air
    quality and meteorological measurements were collected. This database
    is being analyzed to address a number of questions, including: (1) the
    sources contributing to elevated PM-10 and PM-2.5 concentrations, (2)
    the zone of influence of specific sources, and (3) wind flow patterns
    and transport routes between the Valley and surrounding areas.
    Preliminary results indicate that urban sites within the Valley and
    rural sites located in the Sierras have equivalent concentrations of
    secondary ammonium nitrate, suggesting this pollutant is regional in
    nature. At urban sites contributions from local combustion sources are
    then superimposed upon this regional background resulting in elevated
    urban concentrations.
        The results of these analyses are being used to design large scale
    field monitoring programs to be conducted in 1999 and 2000. These field
    programs will address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 and PM-2.5
    standards. Surface and aloft monitoring of air quality, meteorology,
    fog, and visibility will be conducted at a cost of over $12 million.
    Final plans for these field studies are being developed, and will be
    carried out by numerous contractors over a broad are an encompassing
    Central California, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Mojave Desert.
    Substantial resources will also be devoted to developing improved
    emissions estimates. A database of the field study results will be
    completed in 2001, with air quality modeling and data analysis findings
    available in 2002. This timeline is ideally positioned to provide
    information for federal planning requirements as part of the new PM-10/
    PM-2.5 national ambient air quality standards.
        The Department of Interior's prior funding and participation have
    enabled these projects to occur. Continued support by DOI is essential
    to implement a full scope of transport and emissions assessment
    projects and to ensure that DOI concerns are met.
        In summary, for fiscal year 2000, our Coalition is seeking $100,000
    in federal funding to support the continuation of this vital study by
    the Park Service in California. We respectfully request that the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies provide
    these funds in the appropriation bill for fiscal year 2000, and that
    report language be included directing the full amount for California.
    This will represent the final year of funding requested from DOI.
        The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 study will not only provide
    vital information for a region identified as having particularly acute
    PM-10/PM-2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model for other regions
    of the country that are experiencing similar problems. The results of
    this study will provide improved methods and tools for air quality
    monitoring, emission estimations, and effective control strategies
    nationwide. Consequently, the beneficial results of this study will
    contribute to national policy concerns as well.
        The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of this
    request for a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100,000 to support the
    California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study. DOI's past
    contributions have helped ensure the success of the study. The
    coalition thanks you for your support of this important program.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, FL
        Mr Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, the City of Miami
    Beach, Florida appreciates the opportunity to present testimony on two
    important initiatives for which we are seeking Federal assistance.
     north shore open space park /north beach recreational corridor project
        The City of Miami Beach, Florida, seeks your support for funding to
    create the North Beach Recreational Corridor Project, an
    environmentally sensitive recreational greenway which will interconnect
    a series of park facilities distributed throughout the City s
    residential North Beach District and to tie into a regional network of
    recreational trails/alternative transportation routes.
        The City s North Beach District is predominately occupied with
    multi-family residential developments including the majority of the
    City s low and moderate income families. Like most areas in Miami
    Beach, the North Beach District was developed in the 1930's and 40's as
    a resort community. At that time, automobiles were of little use or
    concern to Miami Beach visitors. As a result, very few parking
    facilities were developed in the area. Today, the shortage of available
    parking seriously impedes public access to area parks and beaches. The
    lack of facilities for bicycles and other forms of alternative
    transportation, which are extremely popular in Miami Beach, forces
    riders, etc. into city streets, creating many hazardous situations.
        The North Beach Recreational Corridor will provide a continuous
    route throughout the entire North Beach District interconnecting and
    improving public access to public parks, the beaches and other
    recreational, cultural and educational facilities.
        The main recreational destination along the corridor will be the
    City s North Shore Open Space Park. The 35 acre facility is the largest
    park in Miami Beach and is a highly treasured natural resource. Under
    the City's plan, great emphasis will be placed on the preservation and
    enhancement of the park's natural ecosystems which include the beach
    shoreline, a sand dune system and a native coastal hardwood hammock.
    New native vegetation plantings are proposed between the back dune and
    coastal hammock areas, linking the two habitats and creating a stronger
    dune community. Clear cutting of exotic nuisance plant species will
    strengthen native plantings and help create a visual link from land to
    sea. An expanded interpretive center is proposed to improve public
    access to the highly successful Sea Turtle Hatchery program and other
    nature education programs and activities. This unique combination of
    natural resources and public facilities will offer the community an
    ``environmental classroom'' that will be highly conducive to the
    exploration and understanding of the barrier island ecosystem
    indigenous to Miami Beach.
        In addition to the North Shore Open Space Park, the Corridor will
    also connect with the Altos Del Mar Park, Band Shell Park, Ocean
    Terrace Park, and the 64th Street Park facilities which offer a wide
    array of recreational and cultural amenities. The Corridor will also
    connect with eight beach access areas to enhance public access to the
    beaches and to encourage park-beach cross utilization. Seven regional
    parking facilities will also be connected to the recreation trail to
    help improve recreational facility access for our residents and
    visitors.
        The estimated cost of the project is $7.1 million. The City has
    secured $3.1 million from a Park Improvement Bond Program and an
    additional $840,000 in ISTEA Enhancement Funds. An appropriation of
    $3.2 million from the Department of Interior would provide the
    additional funds needed to allow this valuable regional recreational
    enhancement project to become a reality.
                     miami beach black box theater project
        In recent years, Miami Beach has emerged as a force among world
    cities in the performing and visual arts. More than 700 cultural
    organizations are now based in Miami-Dade County, with Miami Beach as
    the preeminent destination for performances and exhibitions. This
    city's unique character is reflected in creative, multi-cultural
    expression through the arts. Residents and millions of annual visitors
    take part in the cultural arts of Miami Beach. Cultural tourism is
    rapidly growing as Miami Beach's impact on the arts is being felt far
    beyond the island. Influences from the Caribbean and Central and South
    America are a vital part of the city's cultural life, not surprising
    given its geographic location and history as an arts community. While
    adding immeasurably to the quality of life in the city, the arts and
    entertainment industries are recognized as a powerful economic engine,
    critical to the next phase of development.
        With such phenomenal growth in recent years, Miami Beach cannot now
    adequately accommodate its cultural institutions. Performance
    facilities are limited and in high demand. The City of Miami Beach
    Cultural Arts Council is besieged with requests for expanding,
    improving, and creating performance spaces. Collaborative efforts
    between the private and public sectors are underway, most notably in
    developing the city's new multimillion dollar cultural campus.
        Vital to the cultural life of Miami Beach is a ``black box''
    theater--an adaptable performance space for theater productions.
    Several small theater companies are based in Miami Beach, and have
    survived despite inadequate performance space and spiraling rents.
    Community meetings have focused attention on the urgent need for a
    community black box theater, preferably in the city's cultural
    district, though other locations are being considered.
        This grant request for $1 million would contribute significantly
    toward creating an important cultural resource for Miami Beach. South
    Florida's annual Theaters of the Sun Festival and scores of plays,
    readings, and rehearsals could take place in a modern, safe,
    accessible, and adaptable performance space. The city's community
    theater companies, so important to the cultural fabric of Miami Beach,
    would finally have the ``home'' that for too long has been elusive.
        No existing space in Miami Beach meets the needs of the resident
    theater companies. A black box theater is essential if independent
    theater is to flourish in this city. Small, experimental theater
    companies contribute to the community in ways that commercial touring
    groups cannot. The City of Miami Beach has a tradition of supporting
    its artists. The black box theater project is a high priority and, when
    realized, will be a jewel not only for Miami Beach but for theater-
    lovers everywhere.
        Again, the City of Miami Beach thanks you for this opportunity to
    present our appropriation requests and for your consideration of these
    important initiatives.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Sharpe James, Mayor, City of Newark, NJ
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
    us the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
    jurisdiction that is critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey.
    Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the problems
    of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
    potential. We have begun to turn the corner--there is a renewed
    vitality and sense of optimism in Newark.
        Vibrant revitalization is ongoing in our downtown. The successful
    opening of the acclaimed New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) in
    1997--which includes a new public plaza open space; an adjacent
    waterfront development along the Passaic River--which is scheduled to
    begin construction by the US Army Corps of Engineers later this year; a
    minor league baseball stadium where the Newark Bears will begin to play
    this summer; and a planned state of the art sports and entertainment
    complex, all are changing the face of Newark. But the renaissance of
    our City cannot just happen in the downtown business and arts center;
    it must include the residents and their neighborhoods in meaningful,
    substantive ways.
        Newark is the largest City in New Jersey, with 275,221 residents in
    1990, and ranks sixty-third in the nation in population. Newark's
    twenty-four square miles of land makes it the smallest of the country's
    top one hundred cities, with the fifth highest population density in
    the nation. Much of our land is taken up by Newark International
    Airport, higher education and medical facilities, and other
    institutional uses, increasing the density of our actual ``livable''
    space. The median family income, according to the 1990 Census, was only
    $25,816--as opposed to $47,589 for the State--and our population is
    five years younger than the State average. Twenty-nine per cent of our
    population was under the age of 18, and twenty-six percent lived below
    the poverty line. For people living in these conditions, the
    availability of open space and recreation areas is an important and
    necessary asset.
        Fundamental to the goal of bringing Newark back is the
    revitalization of its neighborhoods. Key to this improvement is the
    revitalization of municipal parks in some of our poorest and most
    densely populated areas, in full partnership with neighborhood
    residents and community based organizations. Toward this end, the City
    of Newark seeks the assistance of this Subcommittee in securing funding
    to execute a plan to revitalize neighborhood municipal parks. Projects
    have been selected in each of the City's five wards, with specific
    strategies developed for each. The City of Newark will make every
    effort to match dollar for dollar federal support through its operating
    and capital budgets, staffing and in-kind services. Support is also
    expected from the private sector, including foundations, corporations
    and individuals.
        With federal support, the City's Department of Neighborhood and
    Recreational Services will embark on a community partnership for parks
    strategy, currently being tested in the largest municipal park, Jesse
    Allen Park. Signs will be posted in each park, and a local grassroots
    campaign with advertising will be coordinated to invite all
    neighborhoods surrounding each of the thirty-five small city parks to
    collaborate and make theirs a community park according to the
    established process. In each of the cases described below, a ``riends
    Of'' park association is being formed of citizens who live around the
    park, and anchoring community institutions, such as schools, the faith
    B based community, community development groups, and local agencies.
    Each association will be helped by the City to form a board, create by-
    laws, and become a 501c3 non-profit organization. Each group will be
    expected to get at least 10 percent of the surrounding neighborhood
    residents to join the association and donate at least one dollar, and
    will participate in joint orientation and training with peers from
    similar groups city-wide.
        The City will award additional funds for that particular park,
    which the AFriends Of@ group will help to administer to execute
    improvements and create programming. It is anticipated that funding
    will be in the amount of $1,000 per acre of park, plus matching with
    various foundation and corporate partners who have expressed strong
    interest in aiding the resurgence of parks and neighborhoods.
        The City administration will maintain its current efforts and
    services, such as lawn mowing, trash removal and basic landscaping. In
    addition, our comprehensive strategy will include support from other
    municipal departments. The Engineering Department will address capital
    needs. They will develop comprehensive physical plans and drawings for
    each park, to be compiled in consultation with the community group.
    Federal support will be utilized to match municipal capital investment
    in improvements.
        The Police Department has pledged to create walk-ride units of
    officers who patrol in and between specific parks, and organize police
    youth and adult athletic leagues to compete in the parks. They will
    also train watch groups who undergo association training. The Newark
    Public Information Office will coordinate the communications and media
    strategy, both for initial outreach and with each association in
    determining its own campaign direction and format.
        The four largest parks in Newark are not City-owned, but are
    operated by the County. The Essex County Department of Parks and
    Recreation has agreed to work to implement a similar system in its
    facilities located in Newark so that a common bond and interconnected
    strategy can strengthen and multiply existing efforts. In fact, the
    Weequahic Park Association, one of the City's most active community
    groups, can serve as a model of what neighborhood involvement can do to
    improve park facilities. In addition, a common reservation system will
    be implemented between the City and County to simplify the process for
    organizations wishing to reserve fields and parks for events, programs,
    or ongoing leagues.
        The specific parks that have been identified for participation in
    the demonstration project and the unique strategies for each are
    briefly described below.
        Riverbank and Independence Park in the East Ward.--These parks are
    in the crowded Ironbound section, where the neighborhood has very
    little open space. The City is working with local groups to develop the
    designated park area near the Passaic River with jogging trails, soccer
    fields, and new open space.
        Jesse Allen Park in the Central Ward.--This park is adjacent to one
    school and near several others. It was recently the focus of several
    discussions and meetings with community groups. It is in the heart of
    the City's poorest area, and has been subject to repeated vandalism.
    The City and the newly formed Jesse Allen Park Association are working
    jointly to develop and execute a plan that includes the refurbishment
    of ballfields, a revitalized playground, a new concert area, and
    security measures.
        Kasberger Field in the North Ward.--These playing fields and
    recreation area are virtually hidden in the neighborhood in North
    Newark. It has attracted the attention and interest of many little
    league groups who want to help fix up the facility for ongoing use. A
    security fence, lighting and better drainage have been identified as
    vital needs.
        Boylan Center and West End Park in the West Ward.--Boylan is the
    only City recreation Center in the West Ward, and West End is the only
    municipal park. Both need landscaping, furniture and signage to better
    serve their local area populations.
        Mildred Helms Park and St. Peters Recreation Center in the South
    Ward.--Mildred Helms is a long narrow park in the heart of a dense
    residential neighborhood. It adjoins an elementary school, but is
    littered with crack vials, debris and broken glass, and has broken
    playground equipment. Despite this condition, the area children play
    there daily, as it is the only open space in the immediate area. This
    is a site where neighborhood organizing will potentially enable
    substantial change in the environment. St. Peters is a complex
    including basketball courts, a pool and a center building on the other
    side of the ward. This facility, too, is in need of community support
    to overcome chronic vandalism and return it to full utilization.
        The City of Newark is seeking the support of this Subcommittee for
    a $5 million allocation to help to implement the City's overall
    strategy for park and neighborhood revitalization. Based on community
    partnerships and a sense of pride and ownership, the children of Newark
    will truly have the opportunity to be a part of the Citys renaissance.
        The consideration of this proposal is deeply appreciated. Newark,
    New Jersey is looking forward to your support of this exciting project
    and its innovative partnership.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of James Meadows, Executive Director, Presidio Trust
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to bring the
    Committee up to date on activities of the Presidio Trust as we continue
    the process of transforming the magnificent Presidio of San Francisco
    into a financially and environmentally self-sustaining unit of the
    national park system.
        As you know, Congress established the Presidio Trust as a wholly-
    owned federal corporation in 1996. The mission of the Presidio Trust is
    two-fold: to preserve and enhance the Presidio as an outstanding
    national park in an urban area while ensuring that it becomes
    financially self-sufficient by 2013. The Trust's 7-member Board of
    Directors, appointed by President Clinton, was sworn in on July 9,
    1997. I have served as Executive Director of the Trust since January
    1998, and have, in conjunction with the Board, shaped the development
    of the Trust as it assumed administrative jurisdiction and operational
    control of the park's non-coastal areas, including over 500 historic
    landmark buildings. The Trust completed the process of becoming a fully
    functioning federal executive agency on October 1, 1998.
        The Trust submitted its Financial Management Program to Congress,
    in accordance with the Trust's authorizing legislation, on July 8,
    1998. The Program projects a decreasing reliance on federal funding
    support for the Trust over the next 13 years. The Trust also submitted
    its 1998 Year-End Report to Congress at the end of December. I am
    pleased to inform you that the Trust is making substantial progress
    toward achieving the goals outlined in the Financial Management Program
    and reiterated in the Year-End Report.
        Since assuming jurisdiction over the majority of the Presidio's
    land and facilities on July 1, 1998, the Presidio Trust has moved
    assertively to complete the transition of administrative jurisdiction
    and associated operational responsibilities from the National Park
    Service. The Trust has also instituted operational reforms, including a
    complete preventive maintenance program, and initiated an aggressive
    leasing program.
        Funds provided by this Committee in fiscal year 1999 have been
    absolutely critical to our efforts to bring buildings and associated
    infrastructure into leasable condition. We are particularly grateful to
    this Committee for its support of $20 million in Treasury borrowing
    during fiscal year 1999. These funds will enable the Trust to prepare
    approximately 500 housing units for lease this year. Treasury borrowing
    is also funding the rehabilitation of other historic housing units as
    well as significant infrastructure and historic building improvements
    on the Presidio's Main Post. These improvements are tied to leasing
    activity that is currently underway and will begin to establish the
    sustained revenue flow that will ultimately enable the Trust to become
    financially self-sufficient. Revenue generated from leasing Presidio
    buildings will comprise 97 percent of the income necessary for the
    park's operation and ongoing renovation.
     completing the transfer of presidio operations from the national park
                                    service
        One of the Trust's main objectives in fiscal year 1999 has been to
    assume Presidio operations from the National Park Service while laying
    a foundation for an enduring and productive partnership. By October 1,
    1999, the Trust will have assumed management control of all
    administrative functions, fire prevention, maintenance, utilities
    operations and construction. The Trust also entered into a Memorandum
    of Understanding with the United States Park Police to provide law
    enforcement throughout the Presidio. To accomplish its share of
    managerial responsibility, Congress provided the Trust with $14.9
    million in fiscal year 1999. The National Park Service received the
    remainder of the approximately $25 million in operating funds provided
    for the Presidio.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Trust will have assumed responsibility for
    all administrative functions in the part of the Presidio that is under
    its jurisdiction (Area B). Accordingly, the Administration has
    requested $24.4 million for Presidio Trust operations in fiscal year
    2000. As indicated in the Trust's Financial Management Program, funding
    requests for successive years will decrease annually until the Trust
    has achieved complete financial self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2013.
                            streamlining operations
        The Trust believes that, to achieve its dual missions of park
    preservation and financial self-sufficiency, it must take steps to
    consolidate and streamline Presidio operations and reduce cost. The
    Trust's Financial Management Program projects at least 20 percent in
    reduced operating costs by fiscal year 2013. Already, the Trust has
    found significant savings by eliminating expensive maintenance
    contracts, instituting a preventive maintenance program, repairing
    infrastructure and implementing energy conservation measures.
        Some examples of steps the Trust has taken to reduce costs are:
      --Implementation of the ``Total Maintenance System,'' a computer
            application that optimizes work order processing and response,
            reduces cost, tracks preventative maintenance and enhances
            warehouse management.
      --Repair of leaks throughout the Presidio's water delivery system,
            creating savings of 80,000 gallons each day and $700,000 each
            year.
      --Pressure grouting of sewer lines and manholes, achieving saving of
            $300,000 a year in wastewater treatment costs.
      --Achievement of a 20 percent decrease in overall energy use in the
            park.
      --Design of a one-stop compliance and permitting process, further
            implementing a process to ensure compliance with the National
            Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation
            Act--the process will also be accessible through the Trust's
            web site.
        In addition, the Trust views its leasing program as a key to
    reducing operating costs. Leasing unoccupied historic buildings will
    begin to reverse the deterioration caused by several years of vacancy.
    Since assuming jurisdiction from the National Park Service, the Trust
    has also ensured that heat is maintain in vacant buildings to prevent
    damage caused by mildew and excessive dampness.
    capital improvements necessary to establish a sustained revenue stream
                           to support park operations
        Congress provided the Trust with authority to borrow up to $50
    million from the federal Treasury. The Trust is seeking appropriations
    authority to borrow $20 million of that total in fiscal year 2000.
    Borrowed funds will be used to continue the upgrade of key buildings,
    utilities and infrastructure essential to the Trust's aggressive
    leasing program. Concurrent with this rehabilitation, the Trust will be
    finalizing arrangements for the replacement of the 900,000 square foot
    Letterman Hospital Complex with a new privately-funded complex designed
    to add value to the park, both programmatically and financially.
        Leasing of historic Main Post buildings will provide another
    opportunity for the Presidio to create an educational, environmental,
    artistic and technological village while generating adequate income to
    support the park. In recent months, the Presidio Trust negotiated
    leases with the San Francisco Film Institute for two buildings in the
    Presidio's historic Main Post--the former Sixth Army Headquarters and
    the Presidio Theatre. The Film Institute will use the buildings for
    post-production work, classes and workshops and screening of films from
    around the world.
        A mix of nearly 100 non-profit and for-profit organizations
    responded to the Presidio Trust's 1998 Request for Qualifications for
    twelve historic buildings on the Main Post. The Presidio Trust is
    currently in negotiation will several preferred tenants. Treasury
    borrowing authorized in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 will be
    used to make building and infrastructure improvements needed to support
    Main Post leasing initiatives.
        New tenants will join the 31 organizations currently leasing space
    on the Presidio including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
    Golden Gate National Parks Association, the Corporation for National
    Service, Alexa Internet and the Thoreau Center for Sustainability.
        The Trust also plans to enter into lease negotiations in fiscal
    year 2000 with organizations proposing to deconstruct and replace, or
    reuse, the other large hospital complex in the park--the Public Health
    Service Hospital. The Board of Directors and staff are currently
    evaluating responses to a Request for Qualifications issued for reuse
    of the site. This area of the park will need infrastructure upgrades in
    order to allow for productive reuse of the hospital site. Treasury
    borrowing in fiscal year 2000 would also be used for this purpose.
        Housing will provide over half of the projected lease revenue in
    fiscal year 2013, the first year of Trust financial self-sufficiency.
    However, much of the park's 1,119 housing units are in need of
    renovation and repair. The Trust is using funds provided by Treasury
    borrowing to bring both historic and non-historic housing units into
    leasable condition. Our experience to date has been that such units are
    very marketable, given the extremely tight housing rental market in San
    Francisco. The Trust is currently bringing approximately 42 units of
    non-historic housing into leasable condition each month. More extensive
    renovation, required for many of the historic homes, will also be
    completed on some units this year, and will be continued into next
    year. In fiscal year 2013, the Trust projects that revenue from housing
    will total nearly $21 million in 1998 dollars.
        The Trust also seeks to create a balance between jobs and housing
    at the Presidio by giving priority for housing to Presidio-based
    employees of tenant organizations. This policy will enable the Trust to
    reduce traffic congestion in the park and provides a strong incentive
    for organizations to locate at the Presidio given the scarcity of
    housing in the San Francisco area.
     encouraging the use of private capital to improve and enhance the park
        There is tremendous potential at the Presidio for using private
    capital to rehabilitate and enhance park facilities. To encourage the
    use of private capital in the improvement of federal facilities,
    Congress provided the Trust with authority to guarantee loans used for
    this purpose. The Trust proposes to use loan guarantees in fiscal year
    2000 as it begins to negotiate with entities that will need to incur
    debt in order to rehabilitate buildings. Because of the low risk
    calculated for these guarantees (and therefore the low subsidy cost
    required), the Trust is proposing that the subsidy cost of the program
    be provided from within the Trust's operating appropriation. While the
    Trust does not need additional funds for this program, it does require
    appropriations authority to enter into the guarantees. The
    Administration's request therefore includes authority to enter into
    guarantees with the subsidy cost included in the Trust's operating
    budget request.
        This authorization would allow the Trust sufficient flexibility in
    structuring lease arrangements so that it can obtain the greatest
    benefit for the Presidio and the federal government.
        Another source of private capital for park improvements has been
    philanthropy. Work is currently underway to transform over 100 acres at
    Crissy Field from a derelict jumble of asphalt and chain link fencing
    to a stunning shoreline park with views of San Francisco Bay and the
    Golden Gate. The $27 million project is being financed without the use
    of federal funds, primarily through philanthropy. The project involves
    the largest single gift of funds ever made to the national park system.
    At completion in fiscal year 2000, the restored Crissy Field will
    feature hiking and biking trails, a restored 20-acre wetland, an
    education center where students will learn about natural and historic
    features, and restoration of the original grassy Army airfield. The
    project is being managed by the Golden Gate National Parks Association
    in cooperation with the National Park Service and Presidio Trust.
                      expediting environmental remediation
        Part of the challenge in reuse of the Presidio involves taking
    steps to ensure that environmental remediation of the post occurs
    quickly and in accordance with the Trust's leasing and reuse
    priorities. Because of its tremendous potential impact on the Trust's
    ability to establish streams of revenue to support operations and
    rehabilitation, the Trust is moving aggressively in negotiations with
    the Army and others to ensure that the cleanup is expedited. The Trust
    seeks innovative solutions to the complex issues of remediation that
    will result in a cleanup that is protective of human health and the
    environment, complementary of the Trust's reuse priorities and cost-
    effective. It is essential that sufficient funding be provided through
    the Department of Defense to ensure the completion of this program.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and members of
    the Committee for your support of the legislation that created the
    Presidio Trust and for your continued funding support. We are committed
    to providing you with a streamlined, cost-effective operation,
    declining need for appropriated dollars and a successful base
    conversion and a national park site that is preserved, enhanced and
    interpreted for current and future generations.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, FL
        The Depot Project includes the reconstruction of approximately two
    (2) miles of Depot Avenue from SR 331 to US 441 and the development of
    the Depot Wetlands Park. The Depot Avenue portion of the project is
    intended to address current safety and capacity issues and includes the
    construction of two travel lanes, turn lanes, curbs, sidewalks and
    landscaped medians. Depot Avenue traverses Gainesville from west to
    east, approximately \1/2\ mile south of, and parallel to, SR 26
    (University Avenue). Its western terminus is at the eastern edge of the
    campus of the University of Florida and its associated student housing
    development, and its eastern terminus is at SR 331 in Southeast
    Gainesville. It skirts the southern edge of downtown Gainesville at its
    mid-point, and its intersection with SR 329 (Main Street) is considered
    to be the southern ``gateway'' to Downtown.
        Depot Avenue is located adjacent to the existing Depot Avenue Rail-
    Trail, which is an 8' wide asphalt bike trail. It alternately connects
    an existing recreational park and the proposed Depot Wetlands Park,
    residential areas, commercial areas, and industrial land uses along its
    length. The redesign of the road will address these varying conditions
    and will also provide for the involvement of the neighborhood residents
    it serves.
        The enhancement of Depot Avenue will encourage increased
    utilization of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel and
    increase accessibility to a major public heritage and recreation
    destination for the community. The City of Gainesville's RTS
    Transportation Center is located on the north side of Depot Avenue
    directly south of the core of Downtown Gainesville. The Transportation
    Center is a multi-modal transportation hub for the Regional Transit
    System, Greyhound, Amtrak and the Bicycle Commuter Facility.
        The enhancement of Depot Avenue will also provide infrastructure
    and improved safety while accessing from downtown and the University of
    Florida area to the Porters Community, just west of SR 329 (South Main
    Street) and Southeast Gainesville. The Porters Community lies within
    Census Tract 2, which extends north of University Avenue, and Southeast
    Gainesville lies within Census Tract 7. Census Tract 2 is approximately
    37.7 percent African American and Census Tract 7 is approximately 75.6
    percent African American (Census, 1990). Approximately 35.1 percent of
    all families in Census Tract 2 are in poverty and approximately 31.6
    percent of all families in Census Tract 7 are in poverty (Census,
    1990). The socio-economic conditions of these areas include high crime
    rates, sub-standard housing, and lack of services and investment. The
    enhancement of Depot Avenue provides for safer access to the higher
    employment areas of Gainesville, including downtown and the University
    of Florida, improving physical infrastructure, including drainage
    improvements, lighting and streetscaping, and providing safe bicycle
    and pedestrian facilities that connect both east and west Gainesville
    to Downtown.
        The Depot Avenue Project will provide for beautification, and
    encourage redevelopment and infill in the urban core of Gainesville and
    its adjacent areas. This enhancement will provide a region-based
    incentive for reducing sprawl development in the Gainesville
    Metropolitan Area by providing an alternative east-west corridor to SR
    26 that allows for maximum use of alternative transportation. As a
    consequence, this project will increase mobility while minimizing
    pollution and congestion associated with the use of single occupant
    vehicles.
        The Depot Wetlands Park is a proposed 22-acre Stormwater Wetlands
    Restoration Park that will serve as the stormwater management facility
    and developed urban recreational park that will serve many adjacent and
    nearby residential neighborhoods.
        As part of the stormwater management component of the project, the
    facility is intended to provide water treatment for the Depot Avenue
    Project as well as the Central City District portion of the watershed
    that is located upstream of the facility. This project is in the
    planning stages as the centerpiece of a USEPA and Florida DEP funded
    Brownfields pilot project.
        Once constructed the Park will serve as a hub for several existing
    and planned rail trail bikeways. The Depot Project provides linkages to
    the Depot Avenue Rail-Trail that links with the Waldo Road Rail-Trail,
    the proposed Downtown Connector Rail-Trail that links with the
    Gainesville Hawthorne Rail-Trail, and the proposed 6th Street Rail-
    Trail. This trail system provides connections between the Downtown
    area, the University of Florida campus, many residential neighborhoods,
    and other municipalities. The trail system serves not only recreational
    users but also serves as an alternative transportation facility.
        The Depot Park is home to the Historic Train Depot Building that
    was recently purchased by the City of Gainesville for purposes of
    rehabilitation. The Old Gainesville Depot was built in 1907, and was
    placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. The City of
    Gainesville was founded as a rail hub linking Fernandina Beach on the
    east coast of Florida to Cedar Key on the west coast in the mid-1800's
    and uses a train symbol as its official seal. The Old Gainesville
    Depot's under-roof, otherwise open loading docks will provide open
    vistas to the adjacent Stormwater Park. The Depot building will house a
    unique mix of destination-oriented cultural and commercial uses
    supportive of redevelopment in the Depot Area, the Depot Park, the
    rail-trail system, and the RTS Transportation Center. The historic
    Depot building's unique character and location will serve to make it
    both a lively destination hub for the neighborhood and a catalyst for
    further redevelopment of the area south of downtown. The building is a
    standing testament to and a significant visual emblem of Gainesville's
    rich history. It is also an historic symbol of transportation choice
    that is particularly appropriate to its envisioned new uses, the
    Stormwater Park, the adjoining rail-trail and its nearby connections
    that are being developed, and to the RTS Transportation Center that
    will be built across the street. The restoration of this building in
    conjunction with the restoration of the 22-acre Depot Park is expected
    to provide a major community destination and regional ``eco-tourism''
    attraction for the community.
        The City's Electric Utility is in the process of designing a
    repowering plan for the historic Kelly Power Plant located adjacent to
    the Transportation Center, Depot Historic Structure and the Stormwater
    Wetlands Restoration Park. The planning firm of Dover, Kohl and
    Partners has recently completed a community-planning process held in
    conjunction with the repowering project. This community-planning
    process included the entire Depot Avenue area adjacent to Downtown. The
    City encourages citizen participation in the community-planning process
    and actively provides opportunities for participation in the planning
    of public infrastructure such as the Depot Avenue Project.
        The Depot Avenue Project will include property and right-of-way
    acquisition, design and construction activities at a cost of
    approximately $18.8 million. The Depot Wetlands Park includes property
    acquisition, design, remediation and construction activities at a cost
    of approximately $10.0 million.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Peter J. Ward, Chairman, United States Park
               Police Labor Committee, Fraternal Order of Police
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
    members of the United States Park Police Labor Committee, I welcome the
    opportunity to present testimony concerning the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request of the United States Park Police.
                                  introduction
        The United States Park Police was established in 1791. In 1882,
    Congress gave the USPP powers equal to those exercised by the DC
    Metropolitan Police Department. Since that time, the mission of the
    USPP has expanded substantially in its scope and its importance to the
    citizens of the United States generally, and the national security and
    law enforcement infrastructure specifically. Today, the USPP operates
    principally out of the National Capital Region as well as in the New
    York and San Francisco Regions. We are charged with primary law
    enforcement responsibility for all national parks properties, including
    22 percent of the land area of the Nation's Capital. Within the
    National Capital Region, we are primarily responsible for patrolling
    such facilities and/or their adjacent areas as the National Security
    Agency, NASA, CIA, Department of State Security building, Camp David,
    and more.
        Through Memoranda of Understanding, the USPP actively and regularly
    supports more than eighty federal, state and local law enforcement and
    public security agencies with specialized expertise and equipment.
    Specifically, the Park Police Aviation Section supports Secret Service,
    BATF, DEA, DC MPD, and others on presidential security, drug
    interdiction and eradication, crime suspect apprehension, medical
    evacuation, emergency river rescue, etc. The USPP has five specially
    trained and equipped SWAT teams and a special environmental crime unit.
    Two of the five SWAT teams are authorized for the National Capital
    Region, but only one is active due to resource limitations that prevent
    funding of any of the vacancies in the second. We are truly a ``full-
    service'' police department, running the gamut of police duties from
    routine patrolling to investigating homicides.
        One could argue that the USPP has become a victim of its own
    success. Too often, when competing for scarce federal funds, an agency
    which is successful in its mission is deemed to be adequately funded,
    regardless of the budgetary strain that may lie beneath the surface. I
    believe this is the case with the USPP. We have watched our mission
    continually expand, even as our funding has failed to increase at the
    same rate as our mission. While we are proud of our record, we are
    increasingly concerned about our ability to continue that success at
    current funding levels. This situation, as I will emphasize repeatedly,
    may come to have consequences for the safety of visitors to USPP-
    patrolled facilities, for the security of certain other national
    security related agencies, and for the morale and safety of our
    officers.
        To illustrate our concern, I would point out that current
    international political dynamics have increased our concern regarding
    the possibility of terrorist-related activities against certain high-
    profile national assets within our jurisdiction. Simply put, this is
    not the time for the USPP to be understaffed or under-equipped.
        Another excellent case-in-point is the upcoming anniversary of the
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the festivities to celebrate it
    this year. Obviously, a significant portion of this event will take
    place on or near park service land, and as always, USPP will have a
    major role in providing security. When our FY'99 budget was being
    prepared, no one contemplated this unexpected drain on our resources,
    yet we are tasked with finding a way to do it, and we will. However,
    continual pressure to divert more and more money to ever-expanding
    operations has left significant holes in other areas of our budget.
        President Clinton has requested $1.39 billion for NPS operations in
    fiscal year 2000, a net increase of $102 million over the fiscal year
    1999 enacted level. The budget proposes a $25 million increase to
    address operational needs at 90 parks and the United States Park
    Police. While NPS budgets have increased over the last several years,
    funding for the Park Police has failed to adequately provide for
    operational readiness. This situation has created specific needs to
    correct areas of concern such as basic equipment deficiencies,
    recruitment and retention issues and upgrading our Information
    Technology into the 21st century. We believe that two areas must be
    addressed in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations, the funds to initiate
    the mandated conversion of our communications equipment to a narrow
    band frequency, and increasing and retaining the number of sworn
    officers to meet authorized strength requirements.
    Personnel shortages affecting visitor and officer safety
        Our patrol responsibilities have continued to expand in areas of
    primary jurisdiction as the National Park Service acquires new
    property. These properties are often turned over to the Park Service
    with no additional funding appropriated for patrol functions by the
    United States Park Police. Recently in the National Capital Region we
    have added the FDR Memorial, The Korean War Memorial, the Pennsylvania
    Avenue Corridor and the Georgetown Waterfront Park. Due to heightened
    security concerns, we have increased coverage of our nation's treasures
    such as the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial. In San Francisco
    we have added the Presidio to our patrol functions, a complex of 1480
    acres, and in New York's Gateway National Recreation Area additions
    include the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island and Fort Wadsworth. These
    added patrol functions have strained the officers on the street. In the
    downtown area regular plain clothes anti-crime, bicycle, horse mounted,
    SWAT and motor scooter patrols have been either eliminated or severely
    curtailed in order to provide basic coverage. This has a direct effect
    on our ability to provide high profile patrols, which protect visitors
    in our Nations Capital. The combination of these added responsibilities
    with an ever-increasing attrition rate and the fact that at this moment
    over 180 officers are currently eligible for retirement brings the
    situation near to crisis proportions. In order to provide adequate
    levels of police service, an additional 110 officers are needed to fill
    presently authorized but vacant positions. Without proper dedicated
    funding to fill these positions, severe consequences such as the lack
    of visitor protection, decreased officer safety and morale, and a lack
    of deterrence to terrorist threats in and around our National treasures
    could occur. We believe that a 4-year commitment commencing with fiscal
    year 2000 at an approximate cost of $2.3 million per year should
    correct these deficiencies by fiscal year 2004.
    Communications and equipment shortfalls
        Presently, there is a Congressionally-mandated multi-agency
    interoperability standard for Land Mobile Communications. The
    requirements for that standard include encryption ability, and a plan
    to share critical communication. The existing United States Park Police
    radio system does not permit either of these two goals to be realized.
    Since the United States Park Police cannot currently encrypt their
    radio system, inclusion in the interoperability plan at this time would
    compromise any interagency Land Mobile Radio communications sharing
    plan. This has a direct effect on our ability to provide such mission
    functions as protection of the President, Vice President and visiting
    Heads of State and Dignitaries. With the present capabilities, the
    United States Park Police are unable to meet the requirements of the
    Department of the Interior multi-agency interoperability standard.
        The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA) has mandated that all Federal agencies conform to a digitally
    encrypted narrow band radio system. The United States Park Police use a
    wide band un-encrypted two-way radio system. This system was purchased
    in the 1975 fiscal year. Although certain upgrades and repairs have
    occurred, the core of the system and it's technology are severely
    outdated. It is not possible to convert our present system to the
    mandated narrow band encrypted type required by NTIA.
        Concerns about the abilities of the radio system also have a direct
    effect on Officers' morale. Patrol officers consider a properly working
    communications system as one of the many tools required providing for
    proper officer safety. Although we work in urban areas, our daily
    patrol functions might find us in a relatively isolated area, with
    other law enforcement assistance further away than what an unfamiliar
    person might think possible in the urban environment. The consensus
    among USPP Officers is that the present system is unreliable. The
    officers base this conclusion on the high number of instances where
    they encounter difficulty transmitting and receiving information
    because of high and low pitched background noise, static, poor sound
    quality and dead spots in coverage areas. A lack of confidence in our
    telecommunications system may not only effect the officers decision-
    making process in an enforcement action, but is directly related to the
    safety of the officer should a situation escalate. We are requesting
    $350,000 for an engineering study to assess the needs to bring the
    Force communications system up to date and in compliance with the
    mandated technological changes.
        The United States Park Police programs base funds for the
    maintenance of a separate equipment replacement program and therefore,
    is not authorized to use the region's equipment replacement fund. Years
    of budget reductions and cost absorptions within our base funds have
    depleted our equipment replacement program. This has resulted in less
    than minimal replacement of our fleet of motorized vehicles, outdated
    radio equipment, substandard information technology equipment, as well
    as the severe curtailment of our repair program. In order for the
    United States Park Police to maintain an adequate fleet of motorized
    vehicles and other related equipment, a base increase will be required
    to address our most critical needs and provide future base funding to
    allow for a suitable and timely replacement/repair of required
    equipment. Officers' morale can be greatly effected when our uniform
    and related equipment replacement program has no funds to purchase
    essential equipment. For example, when the manufacturer of bullet proof
    vests only guarantees it's ballistic protection level for a period of
    five years, an officer wearing a vest that is ten years old can not
    understand why the force has no money to purchase a replacement. The
    force has requested $2.3 million to alleviate the most critical
    equipment shortfall needs.
    Employee retention and morale
        Pay and benefit issues have had a significant impact on the
    recruitment of qualified applicants including minorities and women as
    well as the retention of experienced sworn officers. Inconsistent
    interpretations of pay legislation by the Office of Personnel
    Management, adjusted or `diet colas' resulting in colas to our
    employees below the level received by other government employees,
    increases in salaries and benefits among the local, state and county
    police departments, and competition with other Federal agencies for
    applicants have eroded our ability to hire and retain qualified
    employees. The lack of funding for additional recruit classes to fill
    existing vacancies has created a crisis situation for our force. Our
    non-retirement attrition rate continues to rise. Since 1995, 59
    officers have resigned to seek employment elsewhere--26 of those in
    1998 alone. Add to this the 77 officers who retired in the same period,
    and our inability to hire new officers to offset our attrition rate is
    quite clear given our present funding levels. Considering the fact that
    180 officers are eligible to retire today, we must have the necessary
    funding to prevent our ranks from becoming dangerously low. Our
    inability to successfully hire and maintain officers also directly
    affects our inability to fulfill the Department of Interior's
    requirements for implementing its programs to improve diversity in the
    workplace. We were unable to meet the Government Performance Review
    Acts diversity goals due to lack of funds for a third recruit class in
    1998. In December of 1998 MCC consulting conducted a focus group study
    by interviewing 71 Officers and Sergeants. The number one reason for
    our high attrition rate was cited as pay and benefits issues.
    Specifically, officers cited the disparity of pay in comparison to
    local law enforcement agencies, the need to compress the steps required
    for an officer to reach the top pay scale in their grade, the `diet
    colas' mandated by OPM's interpretation of pay issues, lack of raises,
    tiers of pay and low technicians pay.
        Many of you will remember the fiscal year 1998 Treasury, Postal and
    General Government Appropriation legislation which provided
    simplification for the pay scales of Secret Service Uniformed Division.
    This correction removed a great deal of uncertainty and inequity from
    that agency's pay structure, and I believe that Congress was wise to
    take that step. We would ask you to consider providing similar relief
    to our officers, who now suffer from many of the same problems that the
    1998 Treasury Postal bill sought to cure. Such a good-faith effort,
    which could be accomplished for a relatively small amount of money,
    would pay rich dividends in terms of improving officer morale.
        However, if the USPP is to continue to attract and retain the
    caliber of officers that our mission demands, we will need our salaries
    to become competitive with those provided by other police forces in
    nearby areas. Inasmuch as budgetary realities have forced the USPP to
    do more and more with fewer and fewer resources, the ability to attract
    and retain quality personnel is a critical issue. We believe our agency
    is at a deficit in terms of equipment and technology; what prevents
    this problem from becoming a crisis is the quality of the officers out
    there on the job. Without quality personnel, no amount of technology,
    equipment or other investment will succeed at an increasingly difficult
    mission.
        Mr. Chairman, those of us who serve in the U.S. Park Police are
    proud do so; we believe we fulfill a critical mission in protecting
    some of our country's most valuable assets. We are proud of the job we
    do, and we believe that this nation and its taxpayers deserve the best
    we can give them. As we watch our force's readiness erode, the simplest
    solution for most of us would be to find comparable employment with
    another police force; it is certainly available. But many of us have
    invested a lot in the Park Police and we believe in the importance of
    its mission. For that reason, I urge you to consider our requests and
    help us keep the USPP as a strong and ready protective force.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Jean Hocker, President, the Land Trust Alliance
        The Land Trust Alliance (LTA) is the national organization serving
    the country's more than 1,200 land trusts--primarily local and regional
    conservation nonprofits that work with private landowners to protect
    natural areas and other green space through voluntary methods. We are
    pleased to submit this testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations,
    focusing on four federal programs land trusts have used to protect
    places that are important both to their communities and to the nation
    as a whole.
        We urge the committee to provide increases over last year's funding
    for the Forest Legacy Program of the USDA Forest Service, the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF), the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation, and the state grants program of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF).
        Each of these programs provides funds requiring a non-federal
    match, so that they leverage federal dollars with state, local, and
    private money. Each builds and rewards partnerships between federal,
    state and local governments, and between government agencies and the
    private sector. In a very real sense, these programs are investments.
    They are very good investments. They purchase assets of growing value,
    attract the participation of new partners, and leverage every dollar
    you put in with one or two or three from other sources.
        In November 1998 voters passed 124 local and state referenda to
    provide new funding for land conservation. 84 percent of all such
    measures on the ballot passed. Many of these were explicit tax
    increases, demonstrating voters' willingness to raise their own taxes
    to invest in protecting land resources in their communities. This
    subcommittee has done great work in supporting federal help for such
    efforts. We hope that your colleagues will provide you with the
    resources you will need to meet the public demand for conservation of
    open space in this era of American prosperity.
     recommendation: increase the forest legacy program to $50 million in
                                fiscal year 2000
        The Forest Legacy Program supports the purchase of interests
    (primarily permanent conservation easements) in environmentally
    important timberland to protect it from conversion to non-forest uses--
    usually meaning development. Forest Legacy conserves timberland for
    traditional uses, including forestry and provides willing landowners
    with an alternative to selling environmentally and economically
    important timberland for development. For federal outlays of $21
    million, the program has acquired permanent conservation easements
    valued at $34 million. The cost of purchasing those lands outright
    would have been at least $60 million, and probably considerably higher.
        Demand for this program is growing. Last year, Utah, Indiana and
    Delaware came into the program. This year, Tennessee will qualify.
    North Carolina and Virginia are in the process of applying. Montana and
    South Carolina have expressed interest as well. Increasing the Forest
    Legacy Program to $50 million annually will provide the resources it
    needs to function effectively on a national scale.
        For most federal programs, such an increase would require years of
    ramp-up. But because state government agencies take much of the
    responsibility for implementing this program, and because the states
    have already identified $90 million of projects, Forest Legacy is fully
    capable of using $50 million in fiscal year 2000.
        In Vermont, a $342,000 Forest Legacy grant resulted in a
    conservation easement on 2,281 acres of timberland owned by Wagner
    Woodlands-Atlas Timber. The donation of a $200,000 conservation
    easement to The Vermont Land Trust provided the matching non-federal
    component of the project. The landowner will continue to manage these
    lands for timber production, and the public will be assured of
    permanent access for hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, and cross-
    country skiing. According to Hank Swan, general partner of Atlas
    Timber, ``I see this purchase to be a win-win situation. Atlas is able
    to continue its primary mission of sustained yield management and
    harvest of forest products, while still insuring public use.'' Through
    innovative projects such as this, Forest Legacy is proving its value as
    the only federal program designed to help conserve the nation's private
    forestland base.
      recommendation: provide $20 million for the north american wetlands
                               conservation fund
        Congress created the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund to
    conserve wetlands critical for the survival of waterfowl and other
    migratory birds. The program works cooperatively with nonprofit
    organizations and state fish and wildlife agencies in the US, Canada
    and Mexico by providing matching grants for the protection, restoration
    or enhancement of wetlands. This is a competitive grants program in
    which the merits of projects are recommended by the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Council and approved by the Migratory Bird
    Commission.
        As a recently-appointed member of the Council, I have been
    profoundly impressed by the amount of work its NGO members invest in
    this program, and by the program's effectiveness in soliciting cost-
    effective, biologically targeted proposals.
        From fiscal year 1991 through June 1998, 593 projects in Canada,
    Mexico, and the US, involving over 960 partners, have been approved.
    The Fund has contributed $249 million; project sponsors and their
    partners have contributed $517 million. Approximately 4.4 million acres
    of wetlands and associated uplands have been acquired, restored, or
    enhanced in the US and Canada, and conservation in 24 million acres of
    Mexico's biosphere reserves has been improved through conservation
    education and management projects.
        In Washington State, the Columbia Land Trust received a $50,000
    grant to complete a $240,000 acquisition of a 50-acre wetland at the
    western entrance to the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. Working in
    partnership with local, state, and federal agencies, Columbia Land
    Trust will restore the wetland. The site is an important stopover for
    migratory birds using the Pacific flyway and the Columbia River
    corridor.
        The $20 million we have requested for the fund is more than the
    Administration requested--but this amount is needed to assure that the
    program would have as much funding in fiscal year 2000 as in fiscal
    year 1999, when it benefited from non-appropriated funds deriving from
    a penalty levied on a private party in an oil spill case.
    recommendation: provide the national fish and wildlife foundation with
      $8 million from the fish and wildlife service; $3 million from the
       forest service; and $2 million from the bureau of land management
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is another source of
    matching grants that effectively leverage federal dollars for
    conservation and help recruit the involvement of the private sector in
    meeting federal wildlife management goals. By seeking private donations
    and matching contributions, the Foundation has been able to generate
    more than $3 of investment in conservation projects for every $1 you
    have appropriated for their challenge grant programs. LTA has been a
    grateful recipient of challenge grants, for our work in building
    effective land trusts fully capable of protecting habitat and other
    critical open space.
        In Maine, the Coastal Mountains Land Trust received a $25,000
    challenge grant from the Foundation. It matched this with $75,000 of
    nonfederal funds to acquire 225 acres along the Ducktrap River to
    protect prime spawning and nursery habitat for the most genetically
    pure strain of wild Atlantic Salmon in the US. The Foundation presses
    applicants to bring a higher match to the table, and to focus their
    projects for maximum benefit to fish and wildlife. Projects such as
    these are the result.
      recommendation: increase the appropriation from the land and water
       conservation fund and allocate $150 million for the state grants
                                    program
        Since its inception, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    has been a crucial element in the conservation of the land and water
    resources of the nation. LTA supports the Administration's fiscal year
    2000 LWCF budget request, and we are particularly supportive of the
    state grants component of that request.
        State LWCF grants leverage federal dollars and reflect community
    priorities in land conservation and recreational facility enhancement.
    This program provides the clearest opportunity for this subcommittee to
    create partnerships with the state and local government initiatives for
    land protection we referred to earlier.
        The Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests worked closely
    with their state government to acquire key additions to state parks and
    state forests when they came up for sale. In 1979, they acquired a 146
    acre inholding in Mt. Cardigan State Forest. In 1980, they acquired 89
    acres adjacent to Monadnock State Park. In 1987, they acquired 490
    acres surrounding Lovewell Mountain for Pillsbury State Park. In each
    case, state grants from the LWCF were a key component of the
    acquisition of these lands for the public.
        The state grants program, historically very successful in promoting
    community and nonprofit involvement in conservation activities,
    deserves your support.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of the nation's more than 1,200 land trusts, thank you
    for considering the views of the Land Trust Alliance as you make your
    funding decisions for the coming fiscal year. It could make a
    difference on the land for generations to come.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Robert Perschel, Chairman, Northern Forest
                                    Alliance
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Perschel,
    Chair of the Northern Forest Alliance, a coalition of more than 40
    state, regional and national organizations dedicated to the protection
    and stewardship of the 26 million acres of forests that span northern
    New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Together we represent the
    interests of more than one million people. Thank you for your continued
    interest in the issues facing the Northern Forest region and for this
    opportunity to speak to you today regarding fiscal year 2000
    appropriations.
        The Northern Forest is the largest remaining continuous wild forest
    East of the Mississippi. Its 26 million acres blanket Maine, New
    Hampshire, Vermont and New York and hold the headwaters of all of the
    Northeast's greatest rivers and the mountains, lakes and forests that
    define the northeastern region of the country. It provides economic and
    environmental benefits that go well beyond state lines.
        This vast forest is facing a time of extraordinary transition: over
    the past few months more than four million acres of mountains, rivers,
    lakes, ponds and woodlands have changed hands including more than 15
    percent of the entire state of Maine and vast tracts in Vermont and the
    Adirondacks. Land sales of this scale speak to deep forces for economic
    and social change that will have a defining impact on the future of the
    region. Unless we act now to conserve the vast unfragmented forests
    that underpin our economy and way of life, the region and country will
    lose an irreplaceable resource of national significance--the last and
    largest wild forest in the East.
        Unfortunately, the states lack sufficient public funding to take
    immediate action to secure the future of their economies, communities
    and environment. Other than New York, the Northern Forest States do not
    have large enough populations or economies to generate land protection
    funding on the level needed to secure this vast resource of national
    importance.
        People and policy makers across the Northern Forest and surrounding
    states have spoken clearly to the urgent need to take action to protect
    the vast forests. Echoing this call the Clinton Administration has
    recognized the Northern Forest as one of the nation's top conservation
    priorities in the President's Land Legacy Initiative and fiscal year
    2000 budget. These actions reflect the fact that the Northern Forest is
    a mainstay of the economy, ecology and culture of the Northeast; is a
    vast region at risk; and is of great importance to the 70 million
    people that live within a day's drive of the region.
        The Northern Forest Alliance again requests that this committee
    lead Congress in supporting two critical national programs: the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program. This
    position is consistent with the recommendations of the Northern Forest
    Lands Council, which called for full funding of LWCF and $25 million
    per year for the Forest Legacy Program for the Northern Forest states.
    It also resonates on a national level, where, in last fall's elections,
    Americans across the country expressed deep concern for the environment
    and the need to curb urban sprawl and protect dwindling open space.
        A fully funded and revitalized Land and Water Conservation Fund
    would serve the people and communities of the Northern Forest and the
    country well. This well tested, but often-neglected program has an
    impressive legacy and has been responsible for the acquisition of
    nearly seven million acres of open space and the development of more
    than 37,000 parks and recreation projects. Though the fund receives
    $900 million from federal offshore oil and gas receipts each year,
    Congress has diverted the majority of these funds in recent years and
    completely eliminated funding for the critical state and local programs
    most useful in the Northern Forest region.
        Funding the federal Forest Legacy Program is also of critical
    importance to the Northern Forest states and the nation as a whole.
    Productive, privately owned forestlands are expected to provide a
    growing percentage of the nation's timber needs. At the same time,
    however, the USDA has found that the country is losing over 550,000
    acres of productive forestland each year to fragmentation and
    development. If adequately funded, the Forest Legacy Program could play
    a vital role in ensuring that our nation's private forestlands continue
    to support rural forest-based economies and a healthy environment.
        We need your leadership to ensure that Congress passes a
    comprehensive initiative that revitalizes the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and related programs that fully serves the country's
    long-term interests. To enable the Land & Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) to live up to its original intent and promise, Congress should,
    at a minimum, guarantee to:
      --Full and permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
            at least $900 million annually.
      --An equitable allocation of LWCF funding for LWCF's federal and
            state components including.
      --A competitive state-grants process for projects and lands of clear
            national significance allocated outside of the population-based
            formula. This provision is essential to land protection in the
            Northern Forest where we have large holdings of clear national
            significance in states with small populations.
      --Funding the Forest Legacy Program at a national level with $25
            million per year for the Northern Forest region and at least
            $50 million nationally.
      --A revived Urban Parks Recovery Program and Historic Preservation
            Fund funded at $150 million on a permanent annual basis.
      --Funding for Wildlife Conservation at $350 million in permanent
            annual grants to states for habitat conservation and species
            protection.
        To meet urgent needs to protect the prime recreation and
    conservation lands described below, we respectfully request a fiscal
    year 2000 appropriation for the Northern Forest region of:
      --LWCF State Grants: $26.2-$51.2 million
      --LWCF Federal Program: $9.5-$10.3 million
      --Forest Legacy Program: $41.8-$67.8 million
        In the 20-state, Northeastern Region:
      --Rural Development through Forestry: $5 million
      --Stewardship Incentive Program: $3.5 million
        Without these appropriations, unwanted development and forest
    fragmentation will compromise public values, reduce timber production
    and related jobs, fragment wildlife habitat, cut off public access and
    degrade water quality in a region of immense national importance.
           Fiscal Year 2000 Northern Forest Appropriations Priorities
                           lwcf state grants program
    National Lead Lands, New York: 11,200 acres--$ undetermined
        This 17-mile-square area contains 5 other smaller undeveloped lakes
    and ponds. Its public acquisition would be an important addition to the
    High Peaks Wilderness Area, consolidating current public holdings and
    buffering the remote southern High Peaks.
    Green River Reservoir, Vermont: 12,000 acres--$650,000
        The Green River Reservoir is unique for its size, its extensive,
    undeveloped shoreline, and the role of surrounding lands as working
    forest and recreation area.
    Long Trail, Vermont: 745 acres--$184,000
        Six important parcels must be purchased to secure Vermont's Long
    Trail, the nation's oldest long distance hiking trail. Private sale of
    these parcels could threaten public access to the trail, and jeopardize
    one of Vermont's premiere recreation tourism attractions.
    Various, Maine: up to 1 million acres--$25-$50 million
        LWCF State Grants must augment state money to make it possible to
    permanently protect some of the critical undeveloped shoreline on
    Maine's best loved lakes and rivers, Specific acquisition details are
    not yet available, but funding from both LWCF State Grants and Forest
    Legacy is essential to complete important conservation projects under
    negotiation.
    Moose River, Maine: 4,531 acres--$400,000
        An easement would close a large gap in river protection along the
    Moose River ``Bow Trip'' a popular family canoeing route, and would
    protect Number 5 Bog and an adjacent jack pine stand, recognized as a
    National Natural Landmark.
                              lwcf federal program
    Lake Umbagog, New Hampshire/Maine: shoreline +55--$3 million
        Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge provides critical wildlife
    habitat, scenic beauty, and recreational opportunities. Sixty percent
    of the lake's shoreline has been protected.
    Pondicherry, New Hampshire: 600-800 acres--$50,000-$250,000
        The Pondicherry property is packed with important bird and wildlife
    habitat, outstanding recreational opportunities, educational sites, and
    sweeping vistas sought by artists, residents and visitors.
    Champion Lands, Vermont: 26,000 acres--$6.5-$7 million
        The Nulhegan Basin, and island of northern habitat left behind by
    retreating glaciers, lies within the northern portion of the watershed
    and has been identified as high priority area for protection.
                             forest legacy program
    E. Branch Fish Creek, New York: 30,000-40,000 acres--$5.6 million
        The Fish Creek watershed in the heart of New York's Tug Hill
    provides drinking water, wildlife habitat, free flowing scenic rivers,
    and forests of valuable timber.
    Domtar Lands, New York: 105,000 acres--$6 million
        An easement on the Domtar lands would protect from development and
    fragmentation an extensive forest and aquatic landscape. Funding from
    the Forest Legacy Program can ensure that a large, high-quality timber
    producing forest continues to contribute to the region's forest
    economy.
    Green River Reservoir, Vermont: 5,760 acres--$800,000
        The Green River Reservoir is unique for its size, its extensive,
    undeveloped shoreline, and the role of surrounding lands as working
    forest and recreation area.
    Various, Maine: up to 1 million acres--$25-$50 million
        Federal funding is critical to help protect special places like:
    Moosehead Lake/Roach River Watershed and the Allagash Wilderness
    Waterway.
    Nicatous Lake, Maine: 21,000 acres--$3-4 million
        Nicatous Lake, listed as one of Maine's Finest Lakes, has
    outstanding wildlife, scenic, and shoreline resources, significant
    fisheries, and cultural features
    E. Br. Mattawamkeag River, Maine: 11,281 acres--$840,000
        The East Branch project encompasses important water resources,
    productive timberland, and 15.2 miles of undeveloped shoreline that
    protects the area's water supply.
    Mattawamkeag Lake, Maine: 4,195 acres--$490,000
        Mattawamkeag Lake scores high for public recreation assets, scenic
    values, and fish and wildlife habitat, and includes 12.7 miles of
    shoreline. The Maine Interconnecting Trail System crosses the parcel,
    which is adjacent to state land.
    Champion Lands, New Hampshire: 18,000 acres--$ undetermined
        An as yet unknown amount of federal funding from LWCF State Grants
    and/or the Forest Legacy Program may be needed to help complete
    acquisition or easements on the New Hampshire acreage.
        Mr. Chairman, protection of these outstanding places represents a
    tremendous opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and
    public value. It would also represent the continued commitment of
    Congress to work with the people of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and
    New York to protect the irreplaceable resources of the Northern Forest
    for future generations of Americans. Thank you for considering this
    request.
                                     ______

                        United States Geological Survey
               Prepared Statement of the University of New Mexico
                         center composition and details
        The renovated building will house the faculty, staff, students and
    research facilities of the Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research
    Program (LTER). This program, funded by the National Science Foundation
    (NSF) for the last decade, performs research on a wide variety of
    topics relating to environmental aspects of the Southwest. The LTER
    research group also conducts numerous collaborative research programs
    with the National Park Service (NPS), the US Geological Service (USGS),
    the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the US National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA), the US Air Force (USAF), the USDA
    Forest Service (USFS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NSF intends to
    continue to fund this LTER program for many decades as well as increase
    the research and education capabilities at each LTER site. The
    collaborative model that will be realized by the programs brought
    together in the renovated building is a model that NSF will support and
    use to exemplify how interdisciplinary research should be accomplished
    at other universities. This model also will obtain increased support
    from NASA efforts to use LTER sites to validate satellite imagery
    because of abilities of LTER programs to develop the comprehensive
    understanding of complex environmental systems needed for NASA
    objectives.
        The primary mission of the Sevilleta LTER is to integrate research
    on biological responses to climate dynamics. To accomplish this, the
    LTER scientists collaborate with the researchers from the government
    agencies listed above to address problems ranging from drought effects
    to human disease epidemics. For example, LTER collaborative programs
    have: Worked with USGS scientists to identify 60-yr drought cycles in
    the Southwest allowing predictive capabilities for the next major
    drought (2005-2015); Identified environmental changes and species
    responses to the El Nin/La Nin cycles that also provides greater
    predictive power for planning future management strategies for dealing
    with wet/dry periods; Examined the effects of wildfires on ecosystems,
    and provided USFWS and USFS managers with detailed data for fire policy
    development and management; Evaluated biodiversity in five NPS National
    Monuments (Bandelier, El Malpais, Petroglyphs, Pecos and Capulin
    Volcano) and in two Air Force bases (Kirtland AFB and the Melrose
    Range, Cannon AFB); Identified environmental factors associated with
    disease outbreaks in the Southwest, most notably, Hantavirus and
    Bubonic Plague. This research has led to better Public Health warning
    systems and prevention policies, and has spawned long-term research col
    laborations with CDC and NIH.
        All of the research/management efforts described above rely on
    close cooperation with primarily DOI agencies, and integrate those
    relationships with other government agencies at Federal, State and
    local levels. Private groups (e.g., private ranchers collaborating with
    the Sevilleta LTER Program) are also included in the research and
    management programs. In addition, a ``Schoolyard LTER Program'' has
    been established that connects schools in Albuquerque to the LTER
    databases and organizes environment research and education in areas
    along the Rio Grande corridor, emphasizing wise water resource use and
    careful management planning for human development.
        All of these programs will be based in the renovated building. The
    close proximity of the LTER personnel to those of the USGS and
    educational coordinators will promote even greater collaborations
    through daily contact and interactions. The availability of the
    specimen-based collections of the Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB),
    the high-tech research computer laboratories, and the Geographic
    Information System laboratory, will allow the collaborative
    relationships to continue to grow and flourish. Such multidisciplinary
    groups will be needed to solve large-scale problems related to climate
    change, human land use and development, biodiversity, emerging
    diseases, and natural resource management. This multidisciplinary
    approach coupled with access through the computers of the LTER Network
    Office to SuperComputer facilities, other US field stations and
    laboratories, and International LTER Networks will allow a global
    recognition and demonstration for Sevilleta research results.
        The Long-term Ecological Research Network plays a key role in
    improving our understanding of the function and maintenance of the
    nation's ecosystems. Coordination and support for activities of the
    LTER Network is one of the responsibilities of the LTER Network Office,
    located at the UNM under a cooperative agreement with the NSF. At
    present, the LTER Network Office is located in temporary quarters on
    the south campus of UNM. The distance separating the office from main
    campus is an obstacle to close collaboration between LTER staff and the
    various academic departments. Through the proposed renovation, the
    network office will have access to high speed computer links and
    superior computing power and the other occupants will have direct
    access to the expertise in bioinformatics, remote sensing, geographic
    information systems, computer networking, and desktop publishing that
    exists in the network office.
        The proposed Center for Integrated Environmental Research will
    provide opportunities to develop innovative partnerships among the
    occupants of the facility and a broader research and management
    community. The network office occupies the nexus of a communications
    network that involves the 21 LTER sites, 16 other countries belonging
    to the International LTER network, sites in the Global Terrestrial
    Observing System (GTOS), and over 200 field facilities of the
    Organization for Biological Field Stations. High-speed connections to
    the nation's computing backbone are essential for the LTER Network
    Office to fulfill its central role in the coordination of these
    research networks as well as to provide access to the computational
    power of our supercomputer centers. The promise of such advanced
    connectivity was one of the reasons that the NSF opted to locate the
    network office at the UNM. The proposed renovation will allow the
    Network Office to provide cutting-edge computer and information
    resources to our collaborating networks.
        By the combination and juxtaposition of the outstanding research
    programs projected to occupy the new facility, we see a unique
    opportunity in bring together leading edge capabilities in computing,
    communications, and informatics to benefit and drive advances in
    environmental science. Complex issues confronting scientists and policy
    makers require interdisciplinary collaboration and synthesis at much
    larger spatial and temporal scales than are typical in traditional
    studies. In this complex research environment, there is a tremendous
    need by today's scientists for training and trained individuals in
    informatics, data management, and computational biology. More
    importantly actual training in multidisciplinary research has been
    almost totally lacking. Synthetic, data intensive projects will be even
    more common in the future. The synergy provided by creation of this
    center will provide a model for the nation in these areas.
        The research and teaching collections of the Museum of Southwestern
    Biology (MSB) are among the most extensive in the world and constitute
    an invaluable resource for addressing some of the most serious problems
    facing society today. These span a wide range of disciplines from
    global change to public health and make it possible for UNM biologists
    to conduct research and educate students in areas of critical
    importance to the nation and the rest of the world. The research
    materials and the specimen-based databases of the MSB are integrally
    related to the Sevilleta LTER Program, the national LTER network and
    the ecologically based data that they maintain. The MSB is a National
    Biodiversity Research Resource Center based on the ranking of its
    collections, service to the scientific community, size, and quality of
    research and collections management staff. The MSB contains collections
    of national and international significance in all vertebrate classes,
    invertebrates, plants and genetic materials.
        The vast potential of these resources cannot be overestimated. All
    collectively represent an enormous bank of genetic diversity and hold
    the promise of playing an increasingly critical role in education and
    research in biodiversity, genetics, human health, global change, and
    many other areas of comparative biology. In addition, few facilities
    have the potential of crossing so many disciplinary lines of research.
    For example, MSB researchers are currently using historical samples
    from the collections to investigate questions concerning the ecology
    and evolution of emerging diseases such as Hantavirus and Bubonic
    plague. Studies are underway to understand the extent to which these
    pathogens have co-evolved with their mammalian hosts, how they function
    as a member of the natural ecosystem, where they occur, and what is the
    extent of their diversity in nature. Thus, this single research effort
    involves ecologists, systematists, medical researchers, geneticists,
    data managers, public health workers, and molecular biologists.
        The MSB has a wide array of current research activities underway
    that will be enhanced by these new facilities. Much of the ecological
    and bioinformatics work of UNM's Center for the Study of Emerging
    Viruses will be housed in this facility as part of the MSB. This
    research is aimed at understanding the ecology, epidemiology, and
    treatments for newly discovered viruses that pose significant health
    threats to humans. Examples include hantaviruses and arenaviruses,
    which are transmitted by rodents and cause life-threatening diseases to
    people world-wide. Much of the research in New Mexico dealing with
    emerging viruses is funded through this center.
        The MSB is also a partner with the University of Kansas and the San
    Diego Supercomputer Center in a major Knowledge and Distributed
    Intelligence project funded by the NSF to link databases from existing
    research programs in environmental sciences including the LTER Program
    with the museum biodiversity databases from around the world. The
    program has four main thrust areas:
        (1) Enabling technology for (a) access to and integration of
    heterogeneous biocollections, taxonomic and environmental data; (b)
    visualizing species distributions, terrain and climate data for
    computational geospatial analysis; (c) predictive modeling of
    biodiversity phenomena; (d) utilizing the high bandwidth research
    network for multispecies distribution models while gathering on-the-fly
    data from distributed biocollection databases;
        (2) Enabling research on complex problems in biodiversity and
    environmental emerging threats that are currently intractable, thereby
    creating a modeling community of systematists, ecologists, and
    computational scientists;
        (3) Enabling education of the next generation of biodiversity
    informatics scientists, bringing the results of knowledge networking to
    K-12 students and the public; and,
        (4) Enabling collaborative technologies by understanding the
    synergistic behavior among investigators, organizations and communities
    across Internet-mediated networks and new levels of information flow.
        The U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS,
    BRD) maintains a field station of the Midcontinent Ecological Science
    Center on the campus of the University of New Mexico. This field
    station supports the mission of the BRD in working with others to
    provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support
    sound management and conservation of the nation's biological resources.
    The field station primarily emphasizes arid lands issues and has been
    located in the Biology Department since 1974 and has been an integral
    part of the Biology Department's programs in biodiversity, systematics,
    and arid lands ecology since that time. Current projects include a
    variety of management-related research on Department of Interior lands
    in the Southwest as well as projects aimed at providing new information
    on biodiversity and the health of Ecosystems including studies on
    global climate change.
        At present, the vertebrate collections, that are a responsibility
    of this unit, are housed in substandard space with little or no room
    for either research or expansion. (300 sq. ft.), and three other
    employees relegated to table space around the periphery of museum
    collections. There is insufficient light, computer hookups, file space,
    storage space, and privacy for the accomplishment of planned tasks.
    Completion of the Center for Integrated Environmental Research would
    provide greatly enhanced space for collections and personnel and
    provide a greatly improved atmosphere for research within the
    Biological Resources Division, with other USGS divisions, and with
    other planned co-occupants of the Center.
        Additional information at:

        http://biology.usgs.gov/or at www.mesc.usgs.gov/arid__lands.html.
        http://biology.unm.edu/herb/msb.htm
        http://sevilleta.unm.edu
        http://lternet.edu
        UNM Contact: Terry Yates, Chair, Department of Biology (505) 277-
    2496    tyates@sevilleta.unm.edu
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Peter H. Evans, Director, Colorado Water
                               Conservation Board
                              summary of testimony
        The Colorado Water Conservation Board supports the activities of
    the United States Geological Survey's Water Resource Investigations
    program in Colorado and throughout the western United States. We
    respectfully request that Congress appropriate funds to this program
    greater than those identified in the President's proposed budget for
    fiscal year 2000. Only funding significantly above the proposed amounts
    will permit the Survey's Water Resources Investigation programs to
    continue the important work of collecting basic hydrologic water
    quantity and quality data and performing the high quality analytic work
    necessary to manage Colorado's scarce water resources.
                                  introduction
        This statement is submitted by Peter H. Evans, Director of the
    Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Board is the state agency
    charged with promoting the development and protection of Colorado's
    water resources, planning and preparation for the prevention of floods,
    and the protection of instream flows. Given these responsibilities, the
    Board is especially interested in high quality, continuous, and
    reliable data on streamflows and expert analysis of water resource
    issues. The United States Geological Survey has been an invaluable
    partner in the Board's work since its creation in 1937.
        Colorado sits atop the Continental Divide and contains the
    headwaters of most of the principal river systems of the southwestern
    United States and the High Plains. We must share water resources which
    originate in Colorado with all of our neighboring states and the
    Republic of Mexico. The administration of interstate and international
    water allocation is highly dependent on accurate, unbiased, uniform
    hydrologic data. The United States Geological Survey has served the
    western states and the nation well over the last 100 years in providing
    this essential information. The continuity and quality of the data
    collected is truly an invaluable national asset, and should be
    recognized and maintained as such.
                  water resources investigations appropriation
        The overall redirection of priorities apparent in the
    Administration's budget proposal for the United States Geological
    Survey in fiscal year 2000 will cause serious problems for many years
    into our future. While some of the changes are most likely due to
    budget restructuring, such as the separation of overhead and
    administrative costs from program costs, there also appear to be
    significant real reductions in the traditional water data collection
    and analysis programs on which Colorado relies. We support
    restructuring of the Survey's budget to better document and separate
    overhead from program costs, but only to the extent such restructuring
    is truly program neutral. We urge the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee to carefully scrutinize the proposed budget to ensure that
    there are no program cuts masked by the restructured accounting. Beyond
    the restructuring, we observe a shift away from traditional Survey
    functions such as water resource programs in favor of biological and
    ecosystem programs. While the study of amphibians, coral reefs, and
    other habitats is important, it is not within the traditional role and
    expertise of the Geological Survey and a large expansion into these new
    areas should not be accomplished at the expense of the more established
    aspects of the Survey's mission.
        Most specifically, we are concerned about proposed reductions in
    funding for the Survey's Federal--State Cooperative Program which is
    critical to maintaining the Federal--non-Federal partnership in the
    nation's water resources program. In Colorado, we rely on the local
    USGS districts to help identify and develop solutions to local water
    resource problems and data needs through the cost shared Cooperative
    program. The strength of the Federal--State Cooperative and stream
    gaging programs has always been their relevance to both local and
    basinwide needs. In a program where we fund fifty percent of the
    project costs, we make sure the money is spent solving real problems.
    We work with the local District personnel to jointly identify water
    resource problems then tailor the projects and stream gaging networks
    accordingly. Many times a problem perceived to be only local in nature
    proves to be also significant nationally. The Cooperative program has
    been instrumental in identifying these problems. The recent Survey
    report, ``A New Evaluation of the USGS Streamgaging Network,'' (USGS
    Report to Congress, dated November 30, 1998) cites the critical needs
    of the existing streamgaging network, and for additional water data and
    information gages for flood forecasting and warning, water quality and
    regional characterization of changes in flow. Reductions in the
    Cooperative program is contrary to recommendations in that report since
    reducing the amount of federal support will have a negative effect on
    the partnerships necessary to better understand the nation's rivers and
    streams.
        The Administration's proposed reductions in certain USGS Water Data
    Collection and Management activities will cause similar long-term
    problems. In particular, the infrastructure resources research program
    is helping to identify and evaluate alluvial groundwater resources in
    the South Platte Basin, and the watershed modeling studies which can be
    of both general and specific help as Colorado places increased emphasis
    on such models. Both of these important activities appear slated for
    budget cuts apparently designed to support newer Survey interests.
        There are many critical efforts underway in Colorado and throughout
    the basins we share with neighboring states that demonstrate the
    important role that the Water Resources Investigations programs play in
    managing the scarce water resources of the arid West.
      --Cost shared studies funded through the Federal/State Cooperative
            Water Program underway or recently completed are addressing
            issues raised in the litigation between Colorado and Kansas
            over the use of the Arkansas River. The scientific analysis of
            well pumping measurement methods conducted by the Survey should
            provide a basis for improved cooperation between the states and
            more efficient administration of the limited water supply in
            the Arkansas Basin. Water users in Colorado will also benefit
            from efforts to understand and quantify transit losses on the
            Purgatoire River and investigations of recent high water table
            conditions between Pueblo and the Colorado-Kansas stateline.
      --Increasing competition for water supplies in Colorado has led to a
            demand for sophisticated water resource management models or
            decision support systems. New modeling tools being developed by
            Colorado for the San Luis Valley, the Colorado River Basin, and
            the Platte River Basin rely heavily on extensive databases of
            water information which would not have been possible without
            the existing USGS records of historical streamflows and
            groundwater measurements. Many of the stations at which the
            Survey collected this data are funded through the Federal/State
            Cooperative Water and/or the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis
            programs. In addition to historical and ongoing data collection
            the Survey is also participating in development of key model
            components in areas where their expertise is particularly
            valuable.
      --The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is a coordinated,
            basinwide approach to the reduction of salinity in the Colorado
            River. To formulate a cost-effect salinity control program, it
            is essential that both the quantity and quality of the Colorado
            River be accurately understood. Sophisticated computer analysis
            will allow us to project into the future and determine the
            amount of salinity control that is needed, but only if we have
            accurate, continuous data to start with. The federal agencies,
            the seven basin states, and water users implementing salinity
            control measures need timely, reliable data and analysis to
            plan for the most cost-effective program possible. The
            Geological Survey has proven its ability to provide the
            necessary information and is a respected partner in the overall
            control strategy.
                                   conclusion
        We support and urge appropriations for the United States Geological
    Survey, Water Resource Investigations programs sufficient to maintain
    historical levels of basic hydrologic data collection and analysis.
    These programs serve an essential interstate function which the Survey
    has performed with a high degree of integrity and professionalism.
    These basic services should not be sacrificed in a effort to branch off
    into new areas. The western states and the nation will not be well
    served by a fragmented and decentralized data collection program.
    Unwarranted reductions in these longstanding basic data collection and
    analysis programs would be shortsighted and contrary to the national
    interest. We urge you to restore, increase and rebalance the level of
    funding provided for the USGS data collection activities. These funds
    are of critical importance to agencies such as ours across the country.
    Thank you for your consideration of this statement.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
    Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
    the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
    collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
    As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for both the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service includes an increase of $1.5 million for the
    Mississippi River Basin Partnership, a new multi-program initiative
    designed to address the growing need for habitat restoration and
    associated activities in the large mid-continent area that drains the
    Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers. The UMRBA strongly supports
    this new initiative, which will augment the Service's base programs
    that have been struggling to meet the most basic needs in the region.
        Ecological Services.--The fiscal year 2000 budget request for
    Ecological Services totals $198,750,000 nationally. Funding from this
    account supports the field offices in Rock Island, Illinois; the Twin
    Cities, Minnesota; and Marion, Illinois, that do most of the ecological
    services work on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and tributaries. In
    fiscal year 1999, approximately $340,000 in base funding was used to
    support the important UMR work of these offices. In fiscal year 2000,
    Ecological Services is scheduled to also receive $750,000 of the $1.5
    million funding proposed for the Mississippi River Basin Partnership.
    The funds will support critical work throughout the entire basin,
    including restoration of bottomland hardwood wetlands and degraded in-
    stream habitat, early consultation on water resource development
    projects, and work with partners to address nonpoint and point source
    pollution impacts on habitats and wetlands.
        The UMRBA supports both the base funding for Ecological Services
    offices on the UMR, as well as the additional funds that are to be made
    available through the Mississippi River Basin Partnership. In addition,
    the UMRBA urges Congress to provide support for the following specific
    UMR efforts through earmarked increased appropriations of:
      --$1 million to support the Habitat Needs Assessment in cooperation
            with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
      --$500,000 to support water quality related studies;
      --$2 million over 5 years for habitat restoration in UMR watersheds,
            in coordination with the Clean Water Action Plan; and
      --$1 million for relocating the endangered Higgin's eye pearly mussel
            that is threatened with extinction due to the spread of the
            invasive zebra mussel.
        Refuges and Wildlife.--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    administers 249,000 acres of land and water on the Mississippi River
    from the most northerly unit near Wabasha, Minnesota to the most
    southerly unit near Grafton, Illinois. This stretch of the river
    includes the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge,
    Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Mark Twain NWR, and
    Clarence Cannon NWR. The existence of this extensive national refuge
    system is, in part, the reason that in 1986 Congress designated the
    Upper Mississippi River System as a ``nationally significant commercial
    navigation system and a nationally significant ecosystem.''
        The UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request
    of $265.3 million for Refuge Operations and Maintenance, which reflects
    an increase of $27 million over the fiscal year 1999 funding level.
    From this amount, the refuges on the Upper Mississippi River are
    expected to receive a minimum of $5.621 million. This total includes
    base funding of approximately $3.1 million, plus additional funds for
    base and backlog maintenance, visitor facilities, invasive species
    control, and equipment replacement. Also included is a $1 million add
    for the UMR Refuges. UMRBA recommends that this add be allocated
    through the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). Funding through RONS
    will allow the enhanced level of spending to be used for increased
    survey and census work, moist soil management, wetland restoration,
    operation and maintenance of Environmental Management Program projects,
    visitor services, environmental education, and an enhanced refuge base
    of eight new positions.
        In addition, the UMRBA believes that funding for land acquisition
    for river refuges should be accelerated. None of the acquisitions
    scheduled in fiscal year 2000 through the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund are associated with refuges on the Upper Mississippi River. The
    Mark Twain NWR acquisition needs (80,000 acres) are currently ranked
    #24 out of 140 projects ranked by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
    Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge acquisition needs
    (35,000 acres) are ranked #82.
        Also, the UMRBA supports funding of $2 million from the Service's
    Construction account for an Upper Mississippi River Interpretive Center
    as part of the Mississippi River Museum in Dubuque, Iowa. Over $8
    million in private funds has already been secured for this facility,
    which will offer educational and interpretive services for the Upper
    Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
        Fisheries.--Most of the Service's fish management on the Upper
    Mississippi River is conducted out of the La Crosse (WI), Columbia
    (MO), and Carterville (IL) Fishery Resource Offices. Fish stocking is
    done from the Genoa National Fish Hatchery in Genoa, Wisconsin and fish
    health concerns are addressed by the Fish Health Center in Onalaska,
    Wisconsin.
        The UMRBA supports the important work done by these offices and
    thus supports the funding increases which are proposed for the
    Fisheries Account in fiscal year 2000. Of the $79.8 million total
    proposed for Fisheries, approximately $600,000 in base funding is
    anticipated to be provided for the fisheries work on the Upper
    Mississippi River. In additional UMRBA strongly supports the funding
    which will be allocated to Fisheries from the $1.5 million total for
    the Mississippi River Basin Partnership. In particular, $275,000 is
    scheduled for work with partner agencies on fish passage; habitat
    restoration; and assessments of paddlefish, lake sturgeon, and
    freshwater mussels.
                             u.s. geological survey
        While the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS) reflects an overall net increase of $40 million over
    fiscal year 1999 funding levels, it is difficult to accurately assess
    the impacts of this change due to the fact that the USGS budget has
    been reorganized. Some of the restructuring, such as separating
    overhead costs from program costs is a welcome change. However, the
    UMRBA is concerned that the overall effect of this restructuring
    appears to be a shift to more centralized Department of Interior budget
    categories such as ``science support,'' at the expense of local
    district data collection efforts and federal-state cooperative
    activities. In addition, there are several specific research and
    monitoring programs in the Water Resources Division (WRD) and
    Biological Resources Division (BRD) that are of particular concern to
    the UMRBA.
        Biological Research.--The Biological Research and Monitoring budget
    of BRD is targeted for a reduction of $3.5 million in the Species and
    Habitat Protection account. Among the research projects slated for
    elimination is the grassland habitat research which was being done, in
    part, by the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC). The
    UMESC research initiated in fiscal year 1999 ($150,000) was evaluating
    the link between changes in wet meadow habitats and the dramatic
    decline of song bird populations. This research was focused on national
    refuge lands throughout the region and is thus of interest to UMR
    biologists. The UMRBA recommends that funding for this research be
    restored.
        Similarly, BRD funding for the Clean Water Initiative is proposed
    to be cut by $2 million, $350,000 of which was to have supported on-
    going research by UMESC concerning biological impacts of nutrients. In
    particular, studies were underway to assess how the pooled portions of
    the UMR function to mitigate delivery of nitrogen and phosphorous to
    the Gulf of Mexico. This research is of interest, not only because of
    its relevance to Gulf hypoxia, but also because of increasing concern
    about the more local impacts of excessive nitrogen. In particular,
    there is growing evidence that nitrogen is affecting the quality of
    backwater fisheries habitat on the Upper Mississippi River. UMESC had
    begun to evaluate the beneficial impacts that the Corps of Engineers'
    experimental water level drawdowns may have on nitrogen concentrations.
    This research is critical to making wise management choices on the
    river and UMRBA thus recommends that funding for this work be
    reinstated in BRD's budget.
        The UMRBA supports the proposed $4 million increase in the BRD
    budget for amphibian research and monitoring. Because amphibians are
    considered good indicators of overall ecosystem health, it is important
    to understand the scope and severity of their decline and factors
    causing their deformity. A portion of this national amphibian research
    initiative will likely be conducted by UMESC. While we understand that
    the amphibian monitoring and research will be focused on federal lands,
    we expect the results to also be useful to the states, as they fulfill
    their natural resource management responsibilities.
        Water Resources Investigations.--The WRD budget for its National
    Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) is of great interest to the
    UMRBA. Of the 51 study units currently underway nationwide, 4 are
    within the UMR basin: the Upper Mississippi, Eastern Iowa, Lower
    Illinois, and Upper Illinois River Basins. NAWQA study unit activities
    are guided by liaison committees composed of federal, state, and local
    water management agencies, as well as universities and citizen groups.
    Thus the study results are of use for a broad variety of management
    decisions. For example, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
    uses NAWQA surface water data for monitoring compliance with Missouri's
    water quality standards. UMRBA urges Congress to make adequate funds
    available to complete work in the ongoing NAWQA study units and plan
    for reactivating efforts in the first set of study units begun in 1991,
    two of which are the Ozark Plateaus unit in Missouri and the Red River
    of the North study unit in Minnesota. The periodic reactivation of
    study units is a vital part of the NAWQA methodology.
        Also of interest to the UMRBA is funding in the Toxic Substances
    Hydrology account. Among other things, this budget category supports
    ongoing research on the occurrence, distribution, movement, and fate of
    agricultural chemicals in surface and groundwater systems of the
    Midwest corn and soybean producing areas. Within the budget account for
    Hydrologic Research and Development there are two interdisciplinary
    studies of particular interest for which UMRBA also supports funding.
    The first is a study of nitrogen transformation and transport in the
    Mississippi River Basin. While scientists believe that hypoxia in the
    Gulf of Mexico is related to nitrogen from the Mississippi River, it is
    unclear to what extent various sources of nitrogen contribute to the
    problem. The second study of interest focuses on carbon, nutrient, and
    sediment storage in lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands in the Mississippi
    River basin.
        The Hydrologic Networks and Analysis budget category includes a
    proposed increase of $400,000 for ongoing USGS study efforts related to
    the Gulf hypoxia/Mississippi River issue. UMRBA supports this funding,
    which will be used in fiscal year 2000 to provide better spatial
    definition of nutrient production and to improve the scientific methods
    for identifying nutrient sources and associated land uses. Also, as
    part of the USGS Atmospheric Deposition Program, scientists are
    attempting to estimate the relative significance of atmospheric
    nitrogen inputs in the Mississippi River drainage area. All of these
    various studies related to questions surrounding the relationship
    between Gulf hypoxia and nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin are
    of great interest to the UMRBA states. The effectiveness of alternative
    management actions will depend, in large part, upon whether we have
    accurately evaluated the cause/effect relationships and appropriately
    targeted the source of the problem. The states are deeply concerned
    about both the scientific and policy questions associated with the
    hypoxia/Mississippi River nutrients problem. The UMRBA has recently
    requested an extension of the review period for the scientific
    assessments which USGS and other federal agencies prepared under the
    auspices of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR).
    We expect that both those studies and all future assessments done by
    USGS will be better coordinated with state scientists and policy
    makers.
        The UMRBA is also deeply concerned about the proposed cuts in the
    USGS Federal-State Cooperative program. While some of the proposed 17
    percent reduction in fiscal year 2000 can be attributed to the budget
    restructuring, there are $2.5 million in real program reductions. In
    the Federal-State Cooperative program, USGS provides funding for
    stream-gaging and interpretative studies which is matched by nonfederal
    cooperators. In 1998, $5.56 million was provided by USGS for Coop
    program activities in the five UMRBA states. However, local cooperators
    provided in excess of the required match, contributing $7.7 million.
    Clearly, this is a popular and useful program in our region. In
    addition, it is ironic that a recent USGS report to Congress on the
    stream gaging network cites the critical need for additional gages for
    flood forecasting and warning, water quality, and regional
    characterization of flow changes. Despite this recognized need, the
    USGS budget proposal for fiscal year 2000 recommends reducing federal
    support for monitoring the nation's rivers and streams. We urge
    Congress to restore and increase the level of funding for the Federal-
    State Cooperative program.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of John E. Ebel, Ph.D., Director, the Weston
                         Observatory of Boston College
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am the Director of
    Weston Observatory, a seismological and geological observatory that is
    part of the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Boston College, and
    I am also a Professor of Geophysics at Boston College. I am pleased to
    have this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the great
    importance of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
    for earthquake hazard mitigation both in the northeastern United States
    as well as throughout the country as a whole. Weston Observatory has,
    as one of its missions, the goals of studying the earthquake activity
    in New England and vicinity and of using the results of that research
    to encourage earthquake hazard reduction activity throughout the
    region. Past NEHRP funding to Weston Observatory has provided the means
    by which my staff and I have been able to carry out this vital work,
    and future funding is essential if our ambitious plans for new
    earthquake mitigation activities are to be achieved.
        In this testimony, I will present three reasons why NEHRP funding
    should continue to be fully funded, and in fact should be substantially
    increased if possible. First, I will describe how past and current
    NEHRP funding has led to a major improvement in our understanding of
    the earthquake hazard and risk in the northeastern U.S. Second, I will
    explain how NEHRP has in the past, and continues today, to stimulate
    the public in the northeastern U.S. to take earthquake mitigation
    measures. Finally, I will explain some new Weston Observatory plans to
    develop systems for providing vital earthquake information and
    assessments in better and faster ways. Continued NEHRP funding is vital
    to the work not only of Weston Observatory but also of university and
    government research groups working throughout the country on seismic
    hazard and earthquake loss mitigation.
        (1) Long-term, dedicated, instrumental earthquake monitoring in the
    northeastern United States during the past two decades has led to a
    significantly better understanding of the earthquake hazard and risk in
    this heavily populated region of our country. Furthermore, continued
    earthquake monitoring in the years ahead will add substantially to our
    understanding of the earthquake threat in this region.
        I believe that the rapidly growing body of scientific and
    engineering studies and reports produced during the past two decades on
    earthquake hazard, earthquake risk and earthquake engineering in the
    northeastern U.S. attests convincingly to this statement. However, let
    me here give a few specific examples of the kinds of information about
    earthquake hazard (particularly about past earthquakes) that modern
    instrumental monitoring gives us.
        Instrumental earthquake monitoring has revealed that the area in
    New England that has experienced the largest number of small
    earthquakes since 1975 is located in central New Hampshire, roughly
    from Lake Winnepesaukee south about 25 miles to near Concord. The
    earthquakes trend roughly in a north-south direction, parallel to the
    Merrimack River in that area. We know from historic records that the
    pilgrims of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut experienced a
    very strong and frightening earthquake in 1638. The most likely
    epicenter for this event in 1638 is somewhere in central New England.
    The modern earthquake band in central New Hampshire could be very late,
    ``left over'' aftershocks of the strong 1638 earthquake. The length of
    this zone of current seismic activity is consistent with an earthquake
    of magnitude 6.5 to 7.0 in 1638, roughly the strength of the
    earthquakes that hit the San Francisco Bay area in 1989 and Northridge,
    California in the Los Angeles area in 1994. If such an earthquake were
    to occur today, it would be capable of causing damage to cities and
    towns in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine. Further
    seismological and geological studies are needed to find the direct
    geological evidence to confirm this theory for the location and size of
    the 1638 earthquake. Even without this confirmation, there is certainly
    strong circumstantial evidence for the occurrence of an earthquake of
    major magnitude in New Hampshire in 1638.
        In another example, on January 10 and 14, 1999 several small
    earthquakes (magnitudes between 2 and 3) took place. These shocks were
    centered near the town of Amesbury in northeastern Massachusetts, just
    a couple miles south of the New Hampshire border. The earthquakes were
    felt by local residents in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and
    they caused considerable concern among the population there. There was
    a strong earthquake (felt throughout all of New England) that was
    centered in this area in 1727; it is known as the Newburyport
    earthquake because that is the town that experienced the greatest
    damage during that 1727 event. From a scientific point of view, the
    1999 earthquakes are of extreme interest because the felt effects of
    these earthquakes were very similar to those of the aftershocks of the
    1727 earthquake. The modern residents reported that the 1999
    earthquakes were accompanied by very loud ``booms'' and were generally
    fairly noisy. This same type of description also was recorded in
    contemporary accounts for many of the aftershocks experienced shortly
    after the 1727 earthquake. The area over which the 1999 events were
    felt is very similar to the felt areas for the 1727 aftershocks.
    Finally, Amesbury is only about 5 miles from Newburyport. This evidence
    all suggests that the 1999 earthquakes are in the same place where the
    1727 earthquake was centered, strongly indicating the epicenter of that
    historic earthquake. With the modern, precise epicenter, we now have a
    locality where further seismic monitoring and geologic investigations
    should help us find the fault that was active in 1727, which has not
    yet been discovered.
        Finally, during the past two years, there have been several small
    earthquakes that have been detected from offshore of Cape Ann,
    Massachusetts. These are of great importance because they may be
    indicating the epicentral area of the 1755 earthquake. The 1755 event
    was a major earthquake that was felt from Nova Scotia to Maryland, and
    it caused damage in Boston, Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Portland,
    Maine. The epicenter of the 1755 earthquake, and therefore the fault on
    which it took place, is unknown, since the historic descriptions of
    that earthquake only suggest that the epicenter was probably somewhere
    offshore of Cape Ann. Thus, the continued detection of offshore
    earthquakes is vital if we are to identify the active fault on which
    this important historic earthquake took place, a fault that continues
    to pose a major seismic hazard to Boston today.
        (2) Long-term instrumental earthquake monitoring stimulates the
    public to engage in earthquake mitigation activities.
        I have been affiliated with Weston Observatory and Boston College
    for over 18 years, and there is no doubt in my mind that public
    awareness of the earthquake threat in the northeastern U.S. has
    increased substantially during those 18 years. I am also convinced that
    the federally-supported regional earthquake monitoring has directly led
    to this increased public awareness. I say this for several reasons.
    First, reporters, governmental officials, and members of the general
    public now generally are aware that we have earthquakes in New England
    and adjacent areas. In interviews, I am no longer asked questions like,
    ``We really don't have earthquakes here, do we?'' Rather now, a more
    typical question is, ``I know we have little earthquakes, but do they
    mean that we could have a big one?'' Most persons recognize and
    correctly identify earthquake shaking when they feel it. Many are eager
    to provide Weston Observatory with information about what they felt in
    the hopes that the information will help our research. In 1981, people
    seemed much more skeptical that the northeastern U.S. was prone to
    damaging earthquakes. Today, there is little skepticism about the fact
    that earthquakes do take place in the region. I attribute much of this
    increased awareness to the steady, high-quality earthquake monitoring
    that has been carried out in this region since 1975. Several
    earthquakes are felt each year somewhere in New England, and press
    coverage and public interest are always high when earthquakes are felt.
    Regular access to reporters of earthquake monitoring facilities like
    Weston Observatory and of the local scientists studying the earthquake
    activity reinforces in the public mind that the earthquake activity is
    a hazard that needs to be taken seriously. Public reports of scientific
    research results on the earthquakes in the region also get widely
    reported and attract significant attention. It is the presence of
    continuous earthquake monitoring and the regular flow of information
    from that monitoring that has caused many to undertake earthquake
    hazard mitigation activities.
        Increased awareness of the earthquake hazard through seismic
    monitoring has certainly helped to encourage state and local officials
    to adopt seismic resistance in their building codes. New buildings,
    highway bridges, landfills, and waste treatment plants are now being
    designed and built in this region with some level of seismic
    resistance. The willingness of engineers to design to earthquake
    standards and of building inspectors and code officials to enforce
    those standards is due to the increased awareness of the earthquake
    threat in the region. This activity will undoubtedly lead to decreased
    losses in future earthquakes.
        The federally-supported earthquake monitoring and studies based on
    that earthquake monitoring have led to better earthquake planning at
    the state level in New England. As an example, a few years ago some
    colleagues and I at Weston Observatory wrote a report on the seismic
    hazard of the state of Vermont. That report was based largely on
    results gathered from the modern earthquake monitoring. There is now an
    ongoing project in Vermont to create a detailed map of the soils of
    Chittenden County, the most populous county in the state, using
    information gathered by the USGS and by the office of the Vermont state
    geologist. That map will be incorporated into the computer program
    HAZUS (from FEMA) by local planners to assess which parts of this most
    populous county in Vermont would experience the strongest shaking in
    future earthquakes. This information will then be used by state and
    local government officials in their earthquake hazard loss mitigation
    planning. To me, this project demonstrates how well earthquake
    monitoring by Weston Observatory dovetails with related efforts by FEMA
    and the USGS, with the end result being a New England state initiating
    its own study to mitigate the effects of strong earthquakes.
        (3) Increased funding for earthquake monitoring and for earthquake
    research is needed to improve the speed, quality, and usefulness of
    earthquake information to government officials and to the public.
    Increased federal funding over current levels is required if Weston
    Observatory is to successfully create information systems for the rapid
    dissemination of earthquake epicenters, magnitudes, felt areas, damage
    areas, and ground motions immediately following the occurrences of felt
    and damaging earthquakes.
        Weston Observatory is extremely supportive of current USGS
    initiatives to create near real-time earthquake information systems
    and, where practical, real-time earthquake warning systems. The USGS
    report ``A Plan for Implementing a Real-time Seismic Hazard Warning
    System'' calls for the development of a rapid notification system,
    where information on the epicenter, magnitude, felt and damage areas
    are issued within a few seconds to a few minutes after a strong
    earthquake occurs. The USGS draft report ``An Assessment of Seismic
    Monitoring in the United States: Requirement for an Advanced National
    Seismic System'' notes that such a warning system can only be developed
    if there is a significant infusion of new federal funds to upgrade and
    operate new seismic stations throughout the U.S. The goals of a near
    real-time earthquake information system for the New England region is
    achievable with the proper investment of funding, and Weston
    Observatory is already developing plans for such a system. The
    potential of such a system to assist emergency service agencies to cope
    with the effects of a large earthquake is enormous once such a system
    is in place. However, the development of such a system requires an
    investment in new technology as well as in research to develop and test
    the system.
        At the present time, when a felt or damaging earthquake takes place
    anywhere in New England, inquiries are sent from police, fire, or local
    emergency managers to their state emergency management agency. That
    agency contacts the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA)
    which in turn telephones Weston Observatory for verification of an
    earthquake and information about the event. Once Weston Observatory has
    a location and magnitude, that information is telephoned to MEMA, who
    relays it to the emergency management agencies in the other New England
    states. At Weston Observatory, all of the earthquake data from the
    regional seismic stations is gathered via internet or telephone and
    then read by a seismologist, who then locates the earthquake and
    computes its magnitude.
        Weston Observatory is currently developing plans for an automated
    system where the earthquake data from the seismic stations are
    automatically transmitted to Weston Observatory (via the Internet) and
    an initial estimate of the epicenter and magnitude is computed in a
    near real-time system without human intervention. Our goal is to
    develop a system that is sufficiently reliable that earthquake
    information such as an automatically-determined epicenter and magnitude
    would be sent in near real-time directly to MEMA and to the other New
    England state emergency management agencies through the Internet or
    through a beeper service. Weston Observatory is further interested in
    developing a system whereby maps with initial estimates of the felt and
    possible damage areas of earthquakes are automatically generated from
    the earthquake epicenter and magnitude, and these maps can also be
    automatically sent to MEMA and other agencies shortly after an event
    occurs. Because earthquakes in the northeastern U.S. are felt and have
    the potential to cause damage over very large areas (including many
    different states in a single earthquake), such an automated system
    would be of great value in helping emergency managers decide where
    emergency services are most immediately and critically needed following
    an earthquake. Systems similar to this are already operational in
    California, where a much greater number of seismic stations and a
    higher level of dedicated funding have enabled such systems to be
    developed.
        I believe that the automated earthquake information system
    described here can be developed for New England over a time period of a
    few years with the proper investment in new and improved earthquake
    monitoring stations and in the necessary research to complete the
    development and testing of the system. While some experience and
    software from such systems already implemented in other parts of the
    U.S. can be adapted for our system in New England, the particular
    geographic locations of our earthquakes, of our seismic stations, and
    of the way the seismic waves transmit through the geology of the region
    require that parts of a New England system must be created from
    scratch. We already have the plans and rudimentary tests of some
    components of such a system, but much more work is needed to make an
    automated earthquake information system, monitored by Weston
    Observatory, a practical reality in the New England area.
        As a participant in a USGS workshop that helped prepare the draft
    report ``An Assessment of Seismic Monitoring in the United States:
    Requirement for an Advanced National Seismic System'', I strongly urge
    that the recommendations of this report be implemented through
    increased federal funding for earthquake monitoring throughout the
    country. Improved near real-time earthquake information systems will
    undoubtedly stimulate much new earthquake loss mitigation activity in
    those areas of the country in which they are implemented. The rapid
    speed of modern communications along with the experience gained in
    operating near real-time earthquake information systems will make it
    possible for new earthquake warning systems to be developed. The goal
    of all of these efforts is to develop the capabilities to minimize
    earthquake disasters in the same way that hurricane, flood and storm
    warnings save lives and losses when those other kinds of natural
    disasters strike. Our country will benefit enormously from the
    implementation of a new Advanced National Seismic System.
                                     ______

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs
      Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, President, National Congress of
                                American Indians
                                  introduction
        Good morning Chairman Regula, Vice-Chairman Dicks and distinguished
    members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior. Thank you for
    the opportunity to present testimony regarding the President's Budget
    Request for fiscal year 2000 Indian programs and services. My name is
    W. Ron Allen. I am President of the National Congress of American
    Indians (NCAI) and Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe located in
    Washington State.
                the president's fiscal year 2000 budget request
    Department of Interior
                Bureau of Indian Affairs
        The President's fiscal year 2000 budget calls for $1.9 billion to
    be allocated to the BIA, an increase of $155.6 million over the fiscal
    year 1999 enacted level. The budget contains a request of $1.7 billion
    for the Operation of Indian Programs (OIP), a modest increase of $110
    million over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Another component was
    the request of $716 million for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a
    $17 million increase over fiscal year 1999. However, as important as
    these increases are to tribes, and despite the apparent commitment to
    tribal self-sufficiency, self-determination and self-governance shown
    by the Administration in its budget request, this increase still falls
    short of providing adequate funding for critically needed tribal
    programs.
        Although the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000
    includes a $17 million increase in TPA over fiscal year 1999, this
    increase is inadequate to meet the vital needs of tribal governments.
    TPA budget activity includes the majority of funds used to support on-
    going services at the local tribal level, including such programs as:
    housing, law enforcement, child welfare, education, natural resources
    management and other tribal government services. TPA gives tribes the
    flexibility to prioritize funds among these programs according to their
    unique needs and circumstances.
        Over the past two decades, very little funding has been added to
    TPA to allow exercise of self-determination and self-governance.
    Further, in fiscal year 1995, TPA was drastically cut and critical
    tribal programs and services were severely impacted. Since then, tribal
    governments have increasingly fallen behind in their ability to provide
    services in their communities. These budget reductions clearly are
    contrary to and undermine the successes tribal governments have
    achieved.
        Funding levels to TPA have yet to be restored to the fiscal year
    1995 level. The small increases to TPA over the past few years have not
    been adequate to keep pace with inflation. The failure of the
    Administration to include a significant increase in overall TPA for
    fiscal year 2000 continues to hinder tribal governments' ability to
    provide for the essential needs of their communities.
        Mr. Chairman, at the very least, the President's requested TPA
    increase must be supported by Congress. The enormous tribal program
    responsibilities associated with this budgetary category include the
    direct tribal operation of programs. Although the President's requested
    funding level for this budgetary category will help tribes address
    these needs, Congress is urged to increase the TPA budget category well
    beyond its current enacted level.
        Also of concern within the BIA is the issue of contract support
    costs. The moratorium imposed by Congress in fiscal year 1999 on any
    new or expanded contracts, compacts or grants under Pub. L. 93-638
    hampered many tribes' ability to continue their move towards self-
    determination. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for
    contract support costs includes a very modest increase of $6.4 million
    to address the Bureau's continuing contract support cost shortfall,
    plus $5 million for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to address the
    contract support cost needs of tribes taking on new BIA programs. These
    sums are woefully inadequate to make any meaningful inroad into a
    shortfall that continues to penalize tribes which elect to operate BIA
    programs under the Self-Determination Policy. They are also
    insufficient to cover the contract support costs associated with the
    new fiscal year 1999 tribal law enforcement initiatives to be
    transferred to Tribes in fiscal year 2000.
        Per NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-036, Congress and the Administration
    are respectfully urged to reconsider these sums in fiscal year 2000 to
    finally close the gap in contract support cost funding. Although
    Congress is encouraged to support the President's increase, at a
    minimum, it is still just a small step in moving tribes back into the
    position of operating, on their own, the important programs which serve
    their communities.
        Another major area of concern is BIA construction funding. The $174
    million request called for in the President's budget must be supported
    by Congress. As we reported to Congress last year, our schools, health
    facilities, courts, police and fire departments all have facilities
    that are in desperate need of repair and/or replacement. Included in
    this request is an increase of $30 million for school construction.
    This will allow tribal communities the ability to address the vital
    needs of their children and improve the environments in which they
    learn. NCAI also supports the President's budget request for continued
    new funding for Public Safety and Justice construction.
        Further, many tribal communities are still awaiting much needed new
    construction project funding to rehabilitate or replace a variety of
    facilities, including high cost projects such as dams, power plants and
    other infrastructure renovations. The President's budget requests $22
    million for the repair of high hazard dams on Indian lands. As reported
    by the BIA, these dams pose significant threat of loss of life, and at
    minimum, significant economic damage, both on and off Indian
    reservations. The Federal government is responsible for the maintenance
    of these structures and is ultimately liable for any damage which may
    occur as a result of their hazardous condition.
        Each year, BIA facilities face increased safety hazards which must
    be addressed through proper maintenance and re-engineering projects
    that all require adequate levels of funding. The President's request of
    $174 million for BIA construction projects is a laudable first step.
        As reported to Congress last year, the management of Indian trust
    lands is in dire need of reform. The BIA manages over 55 million acres
    of land, 170,000 individual tracts of land, 100,000 active leases,
    350,000 land owners, and 2 million owner interests. According to the
    BIA, the allocation of new resources is designed to ``close the books
    on Indian trust management problems as we enter the next century by
    completing the replacement of core trust management systems, including
    the complete cleanup of all trust records in the Trust Asset and
    Accounting Management System (TAAMS).'' NCAI supports the fiscal year
    2000 budget request of $100 million for the Office of Special Trustee,
    which will provide $65.3 million for continued implementation of the
    Trust Management Improvement Project.
        The Administration and Congress' attempts to empower tribal
    governments to assume more management responsibilities over tribal
    program and service operations, create tribal jobs and develop
    sustainable economies that lead Indian Country into greater self-
    sufficiency are very commendable goals, and ones that are clearly
    shared by tribal governments. However, without adequate federal
    appropriations these objectives will not be achieved. Increased funding
    for programs and services under the BIA budget must be provided to
    ensure that the basic needs of this nation's first citizens are
    adequately met and our collective goals for a stronger economic base in
    Indian Country are fully realized.
                Economic Development
        Under the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended, guaranteed
    loans, direct loans, and grants were established for economic
    development in Indian Country. Unfortunately, since 1996 the grant
    programs and the direct loan programs have not been funded. As a
    result, the only program remaining under this Act is the guaranteed
    loan program.
        Economic development conditions on reservations are dire. With
    welfare reform in full force, sustainable economic development is even
    more essential. Tribes need to develop economic development plans to
    reduce the severe impacts on tribal members and tribal governments.
    However, raising capital to start businesses on reservations is very
    difficult. Under the Indian Financing Act (IFA), grant money was used
    for technical assistance, but more importantly grant money was used as
    leverage for other federal programs. For example, the Department of
    Agriculture has a loan program that guarantees from 70 percent to 90
    percent of the loan. Even though a majority of the loan is guaranteed,
    many Indian individuals and tribes still have difficulty raising the 10
    to 30 percent equity needed to secure the loans. If the IFA grant
    program was still in existence, it could be combined with other federal
    loan programs allowing greater participation by individual Indians and
    tribes. Therefore, through NCAI Resolution #GB-98-004, NCAI requests at
    least $20 million be appropriated to reestablish the IFA grant program.
        Through NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-080, NCAI also requests that
    Congress appropriate $10 million specifically for funding the BIA
    Office of Economic Development for the purpose of providing training
    and technical assistance for the development and expansion of
    reservation business.
                Indian Education
        NCAI commends the Administration for its continual investment in
    Indian education. President Clinton has proposed a total investment of
    $503.6 million for BIA school operations, an increase of $27.5 million
    over fiscal year 1999. This increase in school operations allows the
    BIA to educate approximately 12 percent of the American Indian K-12
    population and will cover additional costs for teachers,
    transportation, and operations resulting from the growing student
    population in Indian Country. Of the $1.4 billion request for the
    hiring of 100,000 new teachers, the President proposes to spend $6
    million to recruit, hire and train BIA teachers in order to reduce
    class size in the early grades. The fiscal year 2000 school operations
    budget supports the President's Executive Order 13096 on American
    Indian and Alaska Native Education which commits to improving the
    academic performance and reducing the dropout rate of Indian students.
        The recent Indian Education Executive Order also cites the need for
    creating strong and safe environments for Indian students. To help meet
    this goal, and in accordance with the President's call for
    modernization of our schools, the Administration has requested $108.4
    million for BIA education construction, a significant increase of $48
    million over fiscal year 1999. This increase will assist in the
    replacement and repair of some of the 185 BlA-funded schools on
    reservations where 53,000 Indian students are currently learning in
    facilities that present serious health and safety threats. According to
    the Inspector General's office, Indian schools were in significantly
    worse shape than even inner city schools. Included in this increase is
    a new $30 million Indian School Construction Bonding Initiative which
    will provide critically needed funds for addressing the growing backlog
    of health and safety deficiencies, which currently exceeds $800
    million, at BlA-funded elementary and secondary schools. Although NCAI
    urges Congressional support for S. 7, the Public Schools Excellence
    Act, as it would allow tribes to utilize the funding to issue qualified
    school construction bonds or other taxable bonds to replace or repair
    BlA-funded schools, this measure and other various school bonding
    proposals continue to lack bipartisan support. Therefore, NCAI
    recommends that the federal government, which is responsible for the
    education of American Indian and Alaska Native students attending BlA-
    funded schools, authorize and appropriate sufficient funds to complete
    all Indian education construction requests.
        The remaining $78 million in school construction funds will assist
    in replacing older, unsafe, and dilapidated schools, including the
    replacement construction of Fond du Lac Ojibway School in Minnesota and
    Seba Dalkai School in Arizona. NCAI fully endorses the notable funding
    increase request for school construction; however, with two-thirds of
    the education facilities over 30 years old, and more than one-quarter
    over 50 years old, the backlog continues to grow. Therefore, by NCAI
    Resolution #MRB-98-084, NCAI calls upon the Congress to support a 5-
    year construction plan of the Department of Interior to eliminate the
    deferred maintenance backlog of need by increasing education facilities
    construction, repair, and maintenance budgets for fiscal year 2000 to
    fiscal year 2004 and to fully fund BIA-funded school construction
    within the next five years.
        The following are NCAI's fiscal year 2000 budget recommendations
    for the following BIA Indian education programs.
        Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA): 1. Adult Education. This program
    continues to be one of the most underfunded Indian education areas by
    the federal government. For fiscal year 2000, the Administration
    proposes $2.6 million for Adult Education; however, the need is $5
    million to adequately fund tribally-based adult education programs. The
    BIA estimates that approximately 20,000 Indian adults who did not
    finish high school participate in the program in order to obtain their
    General Educational Development (GED) degree.
        2. Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program. The fiscal year 2000 request is
    $18 million, the same as fiscal year 1999. The funding need for this
    program should not be less than $25 million in order to provide
    supplemental educational services for 272,000 American Indian students
    in 23 states.
        3. Scholarships. The fiscal year 2000 request of $29 million for
    undergraduate scholarships for American Indians has increased only $2
    million since 1996 and does not allow for the increase in the number of
    Indian students wishing to enter college or the increase in tuition
    costs which are out pacing inflation. The needs of Indian students
    pursuing post-secondary education are often neglected, especially when
    critically-needed programs are cut or eliminated such as the Department
    of Education's Office of Indian Education Fellowship Program.
        Generally, the needs of American Indians tribal higher education
    programs have not been funded at stable and/or adequate levels, and
    inadequacy of funding is becoming more problematic under the TPA
    system. Therefore, per NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-075, NCAI calls for the
    increase in TPA allocation nationally for higher education.
        Other Programs: 1. Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)
    Formula. The President's fiscal year 2000 request is $312 million for
    this program, which provides formula-based funding for 185 BIA-
    operated, grant, and contract elementary and secondary schools. The
    requested amount would provide $3,199 per Weighted Student Unit (WSU)
    compared to $3,125 per WSU in school years 1997-98. NCAI supports a
    funding level of $3,500 per WSU and request an funding increase to meet
    this level.
        2. Student Transportation. The fiscal year 2000 request for student
    transportation is $38.8 million, a $4 million increase over fiscal year
    1999. In fiscal years 1997-98 the BIA-funded transportation cost was
    $1.98 per mile with 15,197 miles (School Year 1996-1997) driven for day
    and boarding schools. According to the latest School Bus Fleet
    information, the national average for student transportation costs in
    school year 1993-94 was $2.94 per mile for public schools. Therefore,
    the BIA-funded schools, which are located primarily in rural, isolated
    areas, are at least $.96 below the national per mile average.
        3. Tribal Departments of Education. The fiscal year 2000 budget
    request, as in years past, does not include funding to assist tribes in
    planning and developing their own centralized tribal administrative
    entities as authorized by Pub. L.103-382, the Improving America's
    Schools Act. Per NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-003, NCAI recommends at least
    $3 million for tribal departments of education to accomplish the
    original intent of the 1994 Act. This would be appropriate given the
    recent trend to convert more and more schools from BIA to tribal
    control.
        4. Tribal Colleges/Post Secondary Schools. The President's fiscal
    year 2000 request for Tribally-Controlled Community Colleges is $38.4
    million, a $3 million increase over 1999. NCAI supports $40 million
    which would provide for an additional $7 million for TCCC Operating
    Grants.
        5. Post Secondary Schools. The fiscal year 2000 request is $14.3
    million and is an increase over fiscal year 1999 of $2.5 million. The
    request includes funding for Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
    (SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations University. No longer in the post
    secondary schools category is the United Tribes Technical College
    (UTTC). NCAI requests that the amount for Haskell be increased to $10
    million since it is the only national institution dedicated solely to
    the post secondary needs of Indian students.
                Public Safety and Justice
        Of critical importance in the fiscal year 2000 BIA budget request
    is public safety on reservations. As this Committee is well aware,
    tribal governments are in desperate need of resources to combat crime
    within their communities. Last year, Congress provided $20 million to
    the BIA to begin addressing the law enforcement needs of Indian
    Country. This year, the Administration is requesting another $20
    million increase for the continuation of this ``multi-year''
    Presidential Initiative. Along with the increase in BIA funding for
    Indian Country law enforcement comes a requested $124 million in the
    Department of Justice for law enforcement on reservations. NCAI also
    supports the President's proposed increase of $2.6 million for tribal
    courts. Adequate funding for tribal courts is critical to ensuring the
    quality of Indian Country law enforcement efforts through a
    strengthened tribal judicial system.
                Trust Funds Management
        The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $100
    million for the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
    (OSTAI), a significant increase of $60.5 million over the current
    enacted level. Over $88 million of this proposal targets OSTAI program
    operations, with $65.3 million of that figure directed at further
    implementing the Trust Management Improvement Project. According to the
    BIA, this project includes a complete overhaul of the Trust Asset and
    Accounting Management System (TAAMS) currently used to manage trust
    asset accounts.
        Other proposals include a $10 million continuance fund for the
    Indian Land Consolidation project and a reclassification of over $2
    billion in tribal trust funds to the ``non-budgetary'' status, similar
    that of Individual Indian Monies (JIM) accounts. This reclassification
    serves to specifically acknowledge tribal ownership over these trust
    fund accounts, while affecting no change to the Secretary's obligations
    to service them.
        We recommend the President's budget increase to help the OSTAI
    improve the Secretary's management of these accounts and to meet his
    goal of correcting a 70-year-old Indian trust fund mismanagement
    problem. However, the recent turn of events surrounding the Special
    Trustee's resigning under protest over the Secretary's decision to
    rearrange administrative authority over trust funds management is of
    major concern to tribes. The Secretary's actions seem to usurp
    Congress' intent to provide the Special Trustee with more independent
    authority over trust fund management activities. Proper management of
    Indian Trust Funds continues to elude the federal government, even
    though Congress and the Administration have attempted to correct this
    dysfunction.
        Total reform of the current trust fund management system may be the
    only formidable solution at this point. However, legislation introduced
    in the 105th Congress as H.R. 2732, the Tribal Trust Fund Settlement
    Act of 1998, failed to propose adequate solutions to the mismanagement
    of outstanding trust accounts. This prompted the NCAI General Assembly
    to adopt NCAI Resolution #GRB-98-054, which opposes H.R. 2732 and urges
    Congress and the Administration to meet further with tribes to
    formulate legislation that will fairly and fully compensate tribes for
    the damages they have suffered due to the federal government's
    mismanagement practices over outstanding trust fund accounts.
        NCAI strongly encourages the Congress and the Trustee to work more
    collectively with tribes to find an end to these mismanagement
    practices and begin reconciling outstanding accounts. The longer we
    wait, the more assured it is that the overwhelming amount of mismanaged
    and unidentified trust fund accounts will never be reconciled.
    Therefore, it is in the best interest of all parties that the
    reconciliation of IIM and trust land asset accounts are resolved
    immediately. NCAI urges Congress and the Administration to stay
    committed, as tribes are, to achieving these goals:
                Indian reservation roads
        Funding for the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) program, which funds
    the construction and maintenance of public roads that provide access to
    and within Indian reservations, Indian trust lands, restricted Indian
    land and Alaska Native villages, is of critical importance to Indian
    Country. On average, only $500 per mile and in some cases as little as
    $80 per mile is available for Indian roads maintenance. In comparison,
    an average of $2,200 is spent on maintaining other federal roads, and
    an average of between $2,500 and $4,00 per mile is spent by states. The
    BIA has only been appropriated $25 million a year for maintenance of
    all reservation roads in the United States. As a result of insufficient
    funding, many roads in Indian communities are not sufficiently
    maintained and have to be shut down during the winter or become
    impassable other times throughout the year. The deteriorating road
    systems negatively affect the health and economic viability of all
    tribal communities.
        Mr. Chairman, the Congress should fund the IRR program at an
    absolute minimum of $300 million annually, as has been recommended by
    both the tribes and the BIA. This would begin the process of addressing
    the backlog of road construction projects. NCAI also urges Congress to
    provide $15 to $20 million annually for Indian reservation bridge
    construction and repair programs. These funds should come from the
    national bridge repair program and not from the IRR allocation.
    Finally, as a matter of policy, tribes should be provided direct access
    to the various federal discretionary programs, such as scenic by-way
    funding, highway safety, mass transit, and other programs.
                Agriculture
        In 1986, the BIA and the Department of Interior were directed to
    submit to the Congress a report on the effectiveness of Federal and
    tribal agriculture and range programs on the national level. This
    report was developed through direct consultation with tribes and was
    submitted to Congress in September of 1986. The ``Indian Agriculture
    Working Group'' was established by the BIA consisting of tribal
    representatives with experience in agriculture and ranching. After a
    review of all the national agriculture polices was conducted and
    hearings were concluded, thirty-two recommendations were submitted to
    the BIA. Subsequently, nearly all of these recommendations were
    included in H.R. 1425, the American Indian Agricultural Resource
    Management Act (AIARMA), which was enacted into law as Pub. L. 103-177.
        The purpose of AIARMA is to require the Secretary of the Interior
    to provide for improved management of Indian agricultural lands by
    working with Indian tribes to carry out numerous programs. AIARMA
    required that an independent assessment of Indian agriculture land
    management practices be conducted as well as final regulations be
    enacted within 18 months of the law being passed; to-date, neither have
    been completed. Other articles include: a preference to Indian
    operations for issuance and renewal of agricultural leases, the
    establishment of an Indian and Alaska Native agricultural education
    assistance program, and the development of a ten-year agriculture
    resource management plan for each tribe's land.
        The primary purpose of Pub. L. 103-177 was to establish a policy
    for the BIA for management of Indian trust lands. As a basis for that
    policy, a need assessment to determine necessary budgeting and staffing
    targets was required. To this date, no assessment has been completed.
    Until this is done, Congress and the Departments will not have a clear
    direction in their responses to the Indian demand of rectifying this
    problem.
        In 1994, the appropriated budget for this Act was $1 million
    dollars, ultimately increasing to $16 million by 1998. To this date, no
    funds have been appropriated for this act. The need for agricultural
    assistance in Indian Country is immense and a land management plan is
    imperative. Therefore, NCAI urges Congress to provide the funds to
    fully support Pub. L. 103-177.
        In 1996, another essential act was passed. The Food Agriculture
    Improvement Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-127), set forward an opportunity
    for an Indian borrower who is facing foreclosure, to transfer the loan
    to either the BIA or the borrower's respective tribe. Such transfers
    are not available under the present BIA policy. At this time,
    approximately 60,000 acres of Indian trust lands are in danger of being
    moved out of trust status through foreclosure. To prevent this, the
    regulations under Pub. L. 104-127 must be promulgated immediately. NCAI
    therefore requests that the appropriate actions be taken.
                BIA General Assistance Program
        The 1996 Interior Appropriations Bill included language which
    capped BIA General Assistance (GA) program expenditures. Such
    inadequate and limited appropriations have forced BIA and tribal social
    service programs to cut caseloads, leaving many potential recipients
    unserved. The enactment of recent welfare reform legislation (Pub. L.
    104-193) places increasing strain on this program. As tribal members
    exhaust benefit time limits in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    (TANF) programs, many urban families will return home to their
    reservation and their family support network. They will also apply for
    GA, as they are no longer eligible to receive TANF. Without increased
    funding, GA cannot serve currently eligible tribal members in desperate
    need of support, let alone accommodate newly eligible recipients.
        For the last several years, the BIA has been in the process of
    revising 25 CFR Part 20, ``Financial Assistance and Social Service
    Program,'' which regulates, among other programs, the General
    Assistance program. In June 1998, the BIA made available a working
    draft of the regulations and met with tribes in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
    for a day and a half to introduce the draft to tribes and to hear
    initial comments. In this forum, tribal leaders and social service
    directors voiced concerns about the dramatic impact the proposed
    revisions would have on tribal communities. Participants strongly
    objected to the lack of tribal input into the draft, the late release
    of the draft, and the lack of advanced notice for the introductory
    meeting. By far, the most substantial compliant was the lack of tribal
    consultation for regulations which propose to dramatically reduce the
    safety net program, General Assistance, which serves Indian people.
        To date, no consultation plans have been released. Tribal
    communities are greatly concerned that the lack of adequate
    consultation on the part of the BIA will lead to a lack of
    understanding of tribal needs. Tribes anticipate that the
    administration will propose draft regulations that reduce the ability
    of tribal communities to sustain tribal members who are in need. For
    example, draft proposals that would make the General Assistance program
    unavailable to persons who have been sanctioned or terminated from an
    applicable TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program for
    any reason, including an inability to find employment, are strongly
    objected by tribes.
        Tribal communities already manage scarce resources and stretch
    those as far as possible. Further reductions in program funding and
    proposed program restrictions in a recently released draft of the
    revised 25 CFR Part 20 serve to undermine the Congress' intent of the
    General Assistance program and seriously threaten the quality of life
    in tribal communities. NCAI Resolution #GRB-98-003, calls upon the BIA
    to increase consultation and negotiations with tribal leaders over any
    proposed changes to 25 CFR Part 20, prior to any proposed social
    service regulations being forwarded to the Office of Management and
    Budget for clearance on publication in the Federal Register as a Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to
    American Indians and Alaska Native people and to uphold the trust
    responsibility as well as preserve the Government-to-Government
    relationship, which includes the fulfillment of health, education and
    welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United States. This
    responsibility should never be compromised or diminished because of any
    Congressional agenda or party platform. Tribes throughout the nation
    relinquished their lands as well as their rights to liberty and
    property in exchange for this trust responsibility. The President's
    fiscal year 2000 budget request acknowledges the fiduciary duty owed to
    tribes. We ask that the Congress to maintain the federal trust
    responsibility to Indian Country and continue to aid tribes on our
    journey toward self-sufficiency. This concludes my statement. Thank you
    for allowing me to present for the record, on behalf of our member
    tribes, the National Congress of American Indians' initial comments
    regarding the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget. I will be happy to
    answer any questions you may have at this time.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Hilton G. Queton, Executive Director, American
                    Indian Graduate Center, Albuquerque, NM
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The American Indian
    Graduate Center (AIGC) of Albuquerque, NM is pleased to submit
    testimony in support of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA)--Special
    Higher Education Scholarship Program (SHEP). AIGC, since 1969, has been
    the only national scholarship program dedicated to serving American
    Indians and Alaskan Natives in graduate study. AIGC, as current
    contractor for the SHEP program, is respectfully requesting $3.5
    million for the BIA's graduate scholarship program in the fiscal year
    2000 Budget. This amount would allow AIGC to provide financial
    assistance to 600 students in the 1999-2000 academic year.
                                   background
        AIGC is a national, non-profit Indian organization established in
    1969 to assist American Indian and Alaskan Native students needing
    financial aid for graduate school. Nearly 90 percent of all SHEP funds
    goes directly to program services, and 10 percent or less is for
    administrative costs. The American Indian Graduate Center also raises
    funds from private sources for fellowships.
        There have been over 8,000 students served by this program in 30
    years. For the 1996-97 academic year, AIGC awarded 276 students with
    $1.3 million. In fiscal year 1996 Congress reduced our funding by 50
    percent, from $2.6 million to $1.3 million. The fiscal years 1998-1999
    funding remained at $1.3 million. Due to the devastating cut in
    funding, AIGC was unable to assist any new applicants for the fiscal
    year 1997. AIGC could only fund continuing students that year. There
    were over 1410 requests for applications from new students for the
    1998-99 academic year, AIGC was able to fund 245 of the requests. Many
    of these students not funded by AIGC were unable to continue their
    graduate education and will probably never be able to continue. The
    increasing numbers of students will substantially reduce the amount
    each student receives. This, coupled with the increased cost of
    education will have a significant impact on the student's ability to
    remain in school. As the Indian undergraduate student population
    increases, this program will not be able to assist them in advancing
    their skills without increased funding. Former recipients of this
    program, such as Lorraine Edmo, Executive Director of NIEA and former
    Assistant Secretary, Ada Deer, are successful leaders in the Indian
    community that have benefited from this program.
        The American Indian Graduate Center, Inc is governed by an eight
    member all Indian board of directors that are from all areas of the
    country, who attend meetings on a volunteer basis and contribute to the
    organization as well. A listing of the current board members is
    attached.
        The report in ``Indian Nations at Risk: An Educational Strategy for
    Action,'' issued by the Department of Education in October of 1991
    stated: ``An increase in funding to train Native educators for
    elementary, secondary, and university teaching and other Professions in
    science. mathematics. law. engineering, and medicine. business. the
    social sciences. and related fields is a national Priority,'' is needed
    for the tribal communities throughout the country. These will be
    trained, Indian professionals who are not only critical to the well-
    being of American Indian communities, but to the country as a whole. We
    all know that Education is the key ingredient to self-sufficiency.
                     current funding and student statistics
        For the current 1999 fiscal year the contract amount is $1,187,000.
    The following is a breakdown of the number of BIA students and their
    fields of study from the 1997-98 academic year and preliminary figures
    for the 1998-99 academic year.

                          1997-98 ACADEMIC YEAR--FINAL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
                           Field of study                          students
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Business...................................................           26
    Education..................................................           41
    Engineering................................................            6
    Health.....................................................          111
    Law........................................................           90
    Natural Res................................................            4
    Other......................................................           42
    Number of Males............................................          131
    Number of Females..........................................          190
    Total Tribes Represented...................................           97
    Total Colleges Represented.................................          148
    Masters Candidates.........................................          123
    Doctorate Candidates.......................................          194
    Dual Degree Programs.......................................            4
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................          321
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       1998-99 ACADEMIC YEAR--PRELIMINARY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
                           Field of study                          students
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Business...................................................           25
    Education..................................................           20
    Engineering................................................            4
    Health.....................................................           72
    Law........................................................           71
    Natural Res................................................            2
    Other......................................................           51
    Number of Males............................................           98
    Number of Females..........................................          147
    Total Tribes Represented...................................           96
    Total Colleges Represented.................................          129
    Masters Candidates.........................................          110
    Doctorate Candidates.......................................          130
    Dual Degree Programs.......................................            5
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................          245
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Applicants to AIGC must apply for campus-based aid through the
    federal financial aid process. AIGC limits assistance to only a portion
    of a student's unmet need. The unmet need last academic year was $3.9
    million compared to this year's unmet need of $6.7 million. The average
    award this 1998-99 academic year was only $3,980, which represents a
    small percentage of their costs. Over the last three years there has
    been a reduction in our maximum award from $8,000 to $4,000 because of
    the increasing number of eligible applicants and escalating college
    costs.
        We have administered the SHEP at a cost-effective level for the
    past ten years. The low overhead costs are due to a well-trained staff
    and the use of modern computer technology. This has enhanced our
    ability to service our students. We have perfected our methods of
    delivering services, office procedures and internal systems. We are
    confident we can continue to successfully administer the Special Higher
    Education Grant Program in a highly efficient manner.
                                summary request
        The American Indian Graduate Center asks that the Senate fund the
    Special Higher Education Grant program in the BIA budget for $3.5
    million in fiscal year 2000. This funding level would bring the program
    to a level of funding comparable to fiscal year 1995. It would allow an
    additional 300-graduate scholarship awards to be made and also allow us
    to raise the average fellowship to $5,000 each. AIGC is the only
    national non-profit scholarship entity, which funds American Indians
    and Alaska Natives in all fields of study. There is no other
    organization that Indian people can turn to for funding for graduate
    school, other than the health fellowships provided by the Indian Health
    Service. INS only funds those graduate students in health fields.
        We appreciate this committee's past support and we want you to know
    that your efforts will help to ensure a pool of skilled professionals
    who can return to their communities and work on improving the economic
    conditions on Indian reservations and urban Indian communities.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe
    located in south central South Dakota. The Rosebud Sioux Reservation
    was established in 1887 as the homelands of the Sicangu Lakota band of
    the Great Sioux Nation. The reservation is home to over 31, 680 tribal
    members residing both on and off the reservation.
        For many years the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has considered the education
    of tribal members to be a major priority. As a result of establishing
    education as a high priority Rosebud Sioux Tribal members have the
    highest education level of any Indian tribe in the United States.
    (U.S.Census Bureau, 1990) This could not have been accomplished, nor
    can it be maintained without the support of federal dollars.
        Ninety percent of Rosebud tribal children attend public schools
    located in five public school districts located on the reservation and
    in the former reservation areas which have significant tribal
    populations. Over three thousand tribal children are enrolled in these
    public schools. All of these schools rely on Impact Aid to provide
    basic education services to tribal children. Title IX (Indian Education
    Act) funds, Title I funds and Johnson-O'Malley funds provide
    significant services to Rosebud tribal children.
        An additional six hundred tribal students attend one tribal school
    established under the authority granted by Public Law 100-297. St.
    Francis Indian School relies totally on federal dollars from the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs/Office of Indian Education Programs for their basic
    funding.
        Drop-out rates and student achievement are two concerns that the
    Rosebud Sioux Tribe continues to struggle with. One third of all tribal
    children attending school will drop-out before they reach the tenth
    grade. One half of the ninth graders will fail one or more classes
    during their first year of high school. Only one third of the Seniors
    graduating each year are achieving at grade level. Tribal children
    cannot read at grade level. Adult literacy is a primary problem. Only
    sixty percent of tribal parents will ever attend Parent-Teacher
    Conferences.
        Schools serving tribal children encounter many problems that are
    the result of extreme poverty. Violence, alcohol/substance abuse, and
    lack of basic needs are the results of poverty. Tribal children often
    do not have their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing met, thus
    are less likely to be able to learn. Health problems are prevalent
    because of poor living conditions, and inadequate health care compounds
    the problems. Attendance becomes a problem for many children. Parents
    spend a great deal of time trying to access resources to take care of
    their families' basic needs, thus do not have the time or energy left
    to be involved in their child's education. Economic conditions have a
    devastating effect on the lives of tribal children.
                         title vii, impact aid program
        Todd County School District is the primary provider of education
    for 2,150 tribal children. Todd County School District operates eight
    elementary schools, one middle school and one high school. Funding for
    the Todd County School District comes in the form of state aid, local
    taxes and federal sources. Todd County School District relies heavily
    on Impact Aid funds from the Department of Education because over one
    million acres of land in Todd County are non-taxable Indian and federal
    lands. It is estimated that Todd County School District could only
    operate for three months without Impact Aid dollars and other federal
    sources derived from providing education services to tribal children.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe urges Congress to support the President's
    2000 Budget Request for $684 million for Impact Aid. We also urge
    Congress to maintain the 1.25 weighted student unit that is in the
    current formula for federally impacted Indian schools.
        Johnson-O'Malley Programs and Title IX Programs are important
    programs that assist students in succeeding in school. The supplemental
    funds are used to connect schools to tribal families, to provide
    tutoring for tribal children in need of additional help, and to provide
    culturally relevant education services that alleviate the alienation
    that tribal children encounter in schools. Without the services that
    these programs provide to tribal children far more students would drop-
    out of school or fail in their studies. Tribal families would have
    little involvement in or connection to their children's education.
    These two programs could be considered equalizers that permit tribal
    children to ``belong'' in their schools and allow tribal parents to
    design programs that they feel their children need to stay in school
    and to succeed in their studies.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports the President's fiscal year 2000
    Budget Request for the Office of Indian Education at $77 million.
    Formula grants to LEA's are important to children attending public
    schools, but we were pleased to see that funding was also requested for
    Special Programs for Indian Children and National Activities. The
    Rosebud Sioux Tribe would like to see funding restored to $83 million
    with funds for all authorized Indian Education Act programs, including
    Adult Education, American Indian Fellowships with full funding to
    NACIE, as well as the Tribally Controlled Colleges Executive Order.
        Six hundred tribal children attend the one tribal school located on
    the Rosebud Reservation. St. Francis Indian School is funded under the
    authority granted by Public Law 100-297. St. Francis Indian School
    operates totally on federal dollars. St. Francis Indian School is a K-
    12 school. Although St. Francis Indian School has a new facility, when
    the students moved into the new facility it was already too small, thus
    overcrowding is a problem for the school. They have tried to solve the
    problem with portable classrooms, however this cannot be a permanent
    solution. The service area of the tribal school is the entire
    reservation and the former reservation area, because of this service
    area, St. Francis Indian School buses travel in excess of 2,000 miles
    per day transporting students to school. Transportation costs for St.
    Francis Indian School are enormous. It is difficult to maintain safe
    buses because of the number of miles traveled each day, thus the
    Student Transportation funds provided by the BIA/OIEP are extremely
    important to St. Francis Indian School. Individual Student Equalization
    Program (ISEP) provides the base funding for St. Francis Indian School.
    The current formula is $1,200 less than the average student cost rate
    in the state of South Dakota, yet the school is attempting to provide
    quality education services, high standards and excellent, well-trained
    teachers. If tribal children attending tribal and BIA schools are to
    have equal opportunities for high quality education, then the federal
    government must live up to its treaty obligations and provide equitable
    funding that will allow tribal and BIA schools to perform with high
    standards.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports increases in the fiscal year 2000
    Presidential Budget for BIA/OIEP programs, especially the ISEP formula
    funds and the school construction funds requested by the President.
        The Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) provides funds for education
    in the form of scholarships, adult education, adult vocational training
    and supplemental funds to Tribally Controlled Community Colleges.
        Scholarships for tribal students are extremely important to the
    Rosebud Sioux Tribe. If we are to have a trained workforce capable of
    competing in the 21 Century, we need tribal members with college
    degrees. In fiscal year 1999 the Rosebud Sioux Tribe was unable to fund
    over 100 tribal members who applied for scholarships because of the
    lack of sufficient funding for scholarships. Scholarships are an
    important source of funding for tribal students because most tribal
    families do not have financial resources or credit histories which
    support student loans. Very few tribal students are able to obtain the
    benefits of the U.S. Department of Education's loan programs. The
    current unmet need for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $400,000.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe asks that Congress provide $30 million for
    Scholarship funds in the Tribal Priority Allocation.
        Although the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has a high educational level, the
    Tribe relies heavily on Adult Education programs to provide GED
    diplomas to those tribal members who have dropped out of school before
    receiving a high school diploma. Welfare Reform has compounded the
    number of people needing a GED. The fiscal year 2000 Budget request for
    the TPA has a slight decrease for Adult Education, however, with the
    elimination of Adult Education funding in the Indian Education Act
    funding, the amount requested in the BIA/TPA is insufficient to meet
    the needs of Rosebud Sioux Tribal members. The current unmet need for
    the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $150,000.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress $5 million in the
    fiscal year 2000 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget for Adult Education
    programs.
        The Johnson-O'Malley Program is extremely important to tribal
    children. The JOM Program assists tribal students with supplementary
    programs, designed by parents, to prevent drop-outs, increase academic
    performance, provide home-school coordination, and work with substance
    abuse problems. These are problems that are partially the
    responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, yet the BIA fails to
    provide sufficient funding for the program year after year. The current
    unmet need for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $177,000.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress provide $24 million
    for the Johnson-O'Malley Program in fiscal year 2000.
        The Adult Vocational Training Program is a highly necessary program
    for tribal students wanting to attend a vocational training school,
    however this program has always been gravely underfunded. Welfare
    Reform has created an increased need for this program. It will now be
    necessary for tribes to assist former welfare clients in becoming
    employable within a very short time span. Vocational programs provide a
    means of quickly helping people gain skills to become employable. The
    current unmet need for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $312,000.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress provide $14 million
    for Adult Vocational Training in the Tribal Priority Allocation of the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Tribal nations have long desired to improve education for their
    children. Recently, many tribes have developed Tribal Education Codes
    in order to regulate education within their tribal nations. In order to
    administer and implement Tribal Education Codes tribes have developed
    Tribal Education Departments to provide functions similar to State
    Departments of Education. Although both the Bureau of Indian Affairs/
    Office of Indian Education Programs and the U.S. Department of
    Education are authorized to provide funding to Tribal Education
    Departments, neither agency has done so. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has a
    dire need for funding for their Tribal Education Department. Since
    1991, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has requested funding from the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs at a level of $225,000. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is
    hereby requesting that Congress provide funding for Tribal Education
    Departments in both the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget and in the U.S.
    Department of Education budget. The current unmet need for the Tribal
    Education Department of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $225,000.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress provide $4 milllion
    in funding for Tribal Education Departments within the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs Tribal Priority Allocation.
        Tribal College funding has always been a primary concern for the
    Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Sinte Gleska University, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's
    tribal college, has had a tremendous impact on education on the Rosebud
    Sioux Reservation. In order to continue the development and delivery of
    services from the University, it is necessary for them to have
    sufficient funds to operate.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is requesting that funding for Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges (Schnyder Act) funding in the Tribal
    Priority Allocation be increased. The current unmet need for Sinte
    Gleska College is $3 million. We also urge Congress to increase the
    Tribal College basic funding within the Bureau of Indian Affairs /
    Office of Indian Education Programs budget.
        The President has requested $48 million for school construction
    bonds for tribal schools. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports this budget
    request, and humbly requests that Congress provide the funding
    requested.
        The President has also requested funds for a class size reduction
    initiative and has requested funds to train and put 1,000 new teachers
    in tribal and BIA schools. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports this
    initiative, however, without additional school construction there will
    be no classrooms in which to place the new teachers.
        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is requesting that Congress provide funding
    to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to construct a new tribal school, which will
    serve 400 students in grades K-12. This facility is needed to
    accommodate the projected growth in student populations over the next 5
    years and to attempt to provide appropriate high quality tribal
    education to tribal students. Current schools will not have the space
    to accommodate the growth in the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's population, nor
    have they been successful in educating tribal children.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Earl Havatone, Chairman, Hualapai Tribal Council
                                   of Arizona
        The Honorable Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Sub-Committee and all
    distinguished Senate members, on behalf of the Hualapai Tribe, we
    appreciate the opportunity to request additional funding from the
    Department of Interior budget for our tribal projects which total
    $11,075,069. We are pleased to report that Hualapai, with your past
    support, has nearly completed an aggressive integrated Tribal
    management initiative, which has resulted in progressive management of
    our social services, and the environment, including the protection of
    cultural resources, and the sustainable development of our unique
    natural resources.
        However, funding priorities set by the Department of Interior are
    not always responsive to the unique circumstances of the Hualapai
    Tribe. We are requesting Congress for additional funding which will
    assist the Hualapai in achieving a higher degree of economic
    independence and well-being. We simply ask bipartisan support to
    prepare the Tribe for the 21st Century and true self-determination. In
    light of the recently reported projections of an $8 billion dollar
    federal surplus, there is now a means to satisfy some of the critical
    needs that the Tribe has testified about in the past ten years. The
    following programs need your attention and additional support:
        BIA. Housing Improvement Program, $250,000.--This program requires
    additional funding to repair and renovate existing homes that were
    built in the 1970's or later.
        BIA-Indian Child Welfare Act Program, $150,000.--Additional funding
    is needed in this program to employ one (1) legal advocate and
    logistical support to protect our children.
        BIA-Johnson O'Malley, $150,000.--This program supports educational
    services, incentive programs, educational community projects and youth
    programs currently enrolled in four (4) off-reservation school
    districts.
        Headstart $500,000.--This program provides early childhood
    instructional education, medical screening and health maintenance for
    our most valuable resource our children.
        Elderly Program (Title III & XX & Title VI) $115,069.--This program
    provides hostel services, cultural activities and congregate food
    services for our elderly.
        Comprehensive Health Program $450,000.--This program needs
    additional funding for three (3) contract programs: Alcohol Program,
    Community Health Nurse Program and Mental Health Program. We need
    funding to combat the high rate of alcoholism and drug abuse among our
    youth. In addition, we have a high rate of diabetes including an
    increasing amount of dialysis patients, which necessitates the
    increased funding needs for diabetes prevention education.
        Ambulatory Care Clinic $2,500,000.--The Hualapai Tribe needs
    funding to construct an ambulatory health care facility, including
    equipment, staff and logistic support. The current CDBG/HUD funds are
    not adequate to address the needs of our Tribe.
        IHS Emergency Medical Services $400,000.--Additional funding is
    needed for 24 hour, seven days a week medical services for our
    community.
        Women's Infant & Children (WIC) $25,000.--We need additional
    funding to provide for infant nutritional program and other medical
    aid.
        Family Violence $80,000.--We need funding to provide protective
    services for abused women and children that are placed in shelters and
    safe houses.
        BIA-Roads Maintenance and Repair $500,000.--The Tribe is
    responsible for approximately 300 miles of reservation roads. We need
    $200,000 for operation and maintenance, and $300,000 to replace
    equipment that is antiquated beyond repair.
        BIA-Structure Fire Program $90,000.--This program has been
    retroceded to BIA operations due to inadequate funding, and is in need
    of additional funding.
        Selected BIA-Consolidated Tribal Government Programs (CTGP) (not
    including Natural Resources discussed below) $1,000,000.--Funding is
    needed for existing CTGP programs of Higher Education, Tribal Work
    Experience, Tribal Court, Adult Vocational Training, Tribal Operations,
    Summer Youth Programs.
        Natural Resources Department $850,000.--Our Natural Resources
    Department is in dire need of a facility in order to integrate all of
    the its management, administration and services. The departmental
    offices of Agriculture, Cultural Resources, Forestry, Environmental
    Services, Water Resources, Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and
    Environmental Protection are now located in substandard buildings that
    are or will be condemned. The Tribe is requesting $600,000 to build an
    ``Earthship Complex Facility'' that will house all departmental offices
    in a central location in order to provide better service to tribal
    members, Federal, State and local governments. With funding support
    from the EPA, the Tribe has completed the first ``earthship'' of this
    complex, constructed with tribal natural resources (timber and
    flagstone) as well as recycled tires and cans encased in earth with
    passive solar applications, solar panels. A small investment of
    $600,000 will provide an environmentally sound demonstration project
    that can be used as a model for other tribes and the general public to
    follow nationwide.
        We submitted to the Phoenix BIA Area Office a funding request for
    our Natural Resources General 638 Contract, which includes $900,000 for
    start up costs. However, we only received $15,000 from the BIA, and per
    the recommendation of Phoenix Area Of lice, we have resubmitted our
    request. For tribal management of nearly 1,000,000 acres of the
    reservation lands, the Tribe needs a congressional earmark of $250,000
    for our Natural Resources program, which is the funding equivalent of
    $0.25/acre. The BIA funded the contract for $6,000 in fiscal year 1997
    and $10,000 in fiscal year 1998 & fiscal year 1999. This funding
    averages about $0.008/acre which is a ridiculously low average compared
    to the average of $1.50/acre that Federal agencies receive for their
    land management.
        We need the $250,000 to staff and administer the Tribe's on-going
    coordination and cooperation efforts relating to land management with
    more than 25 Federal, State and local and private entities. Without a
    specific earmark for Natural Resources, the Tribe will be forced to
    rely on limited program dollars to fund this function.
        BIA-Water Resources $675,000.--In late 1991, the Hualapai Tribal
    Council initiated a program to quantify and manage our scarce water
    resources through a 638 contract. Survival in the desert Southwest is
    entirely dependent upon reliable water resources and sound water
    management. Yet, the 638 funding criteria for fiscal years 2000-2001
    does not adequately address this pressing need. In fact, we have not
    received an allocation for fiscal year 1999, and we fear that our water
    resources program may soon be without funding to carry out the needed
    work.
        We request $675,000 this coming year to continue our water
    assessment and to begin to litigate/negotiate our water rights on the
    Colorado River and in the Gila River adjudication.
        Wildlife Fisheries and Parks Department $1,215,000.--The projected
    fiscal year 2001 budget of the Hualapai Wildlife Fisheries and Parks
    Department is $1,215,000 and is not likely to be funded within the
    BIA's fiscal year 2001 allocations. The Tribe is responsible for the
    management and protection of one million acres within the Grand Canyon.
    The amount we are requesting will be used to complement the management
    goals of the Grand Canyon National Park, including expanding and
    enhancing recreation opportunities and visitor services. Funds are
    needed to supplement existing available resources for the Hualapai
    Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Department, and will be used accordingly:

                                                                      Amount
    Native Fish Rearing Facility Construction.....................  $490,000
    Biological Survey and Training Education......................    75,000
    Peach Springs Canyon Recreation Facilities....................   250,000
    Base Program/Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks......................   400,000

        Forestry $675,000.--Ninety percent of the funding for our 638
    Contract Forestry Program has come from unbended forest development
    congressional add-on monies. This source of funding was appropriate
    when our main emphasis was in forest development, but we have shifted
    the direction of our forestry program since the completion of our
    Forest Management Plan.
        The Hualapai Tribal Forest Management Plan (1987-1996) includes an
    annual budget of $675,000 for all forestry activities, including:
    $375,000 for timber sale preparation and administration, $125,000 for
    management plans and inventories, and $175,000 for forest development.
        We respectfully ask that Congress fulfill the intent of the 1990
    Indian Forest Management Act (PL 101-630) by funding the activities
    outlined in our BIA-approved Forest Management Plan. Accordingly, we
    request an annual appropriation of $675,000 earmarked through the
    Tribal Priority System for the Hualapai timber sale and management plan
    programs administered through our Forestry Program.
        Agriculture $500,000.--We plan in the next 3 years to begin
    repairing our reservation boundary fence, which is approximately 228
    miles long. We need $100,000 to fund the beginning phase of this
    project as well as continual funding to complete the project. We also
    propose to rebuild the Tribal Stockyard, which was originally built in
    the 1950's and which requires $150,000 for restoration purposes. We
    need a congressional earmark of $500,000 for support of the Hualapai
    Agriculture Program.
        Cultural Resources $250,000.--Pursuant to the Native American
    Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et
    seq.), the Hualapai Tribe has been receiving and responding to 110
    different repatriation inquiries from museums across the country that
    have items that may belong to the Tribe. To preserve and protect our
    cultural resources that we repatriate under Federal law, we need funds
    to construct a temperature-controlled facility to house these
    materials. The funding will also be used for support staff and office
    space for our growing Cultural Resources Department.
        BIA Environment Trust Resources $750,000.--We need funds to
    reconstruct a waterline soldered with lead and to provide a long-term
    base for the environmental programs. This waterline is the only
    secondary backup domestic source of drinking water for the town of
    Peach Springs and its reconstruction is estimated to cost $350,000. The
    Environmental Services & Environmental Protection Programs are new
    tribal programs that we created to address the staggering backlog of
    NEPA compliance documents required for all federally funded programs.
    We need an additional $400,000 to provide base funding for the Tribe's
    top ten environmental priorities. The Tribe has nearly completed a
    Tribal Environmental Review Code (with 13 subtitles) through an ANA
    Grant. The Tribe has also identified and assessed the entire
    reservation wetlands and watersheds through an EPA Grant. And, we have
    begun a non-point pollution control program through EPA and ADEQ. The
    primary concern that we have with these sources of funds is that they
    are competitive grant projects. Without a continuing base funding from
    the BIA Trust Resource Account funds, our environmental programs will
    cease to exist and we will be unable to protect the environment for
    future generations to come. Therefore, we respectfully request that
    funding be set aside for the Hualapai Tribe Environmental Protection
    Program in BIA Trust Resources in the amount of $750,000.
        The Hualapai Tribe is very proud of the extraordinary progress it
    has made in less than a decade with what amounts to a relatively modest
    Federal trust investment. We are confident and dedicated to the goal
    that a small tribe, surrounded as we are by bountiful natural
    resources, can achieve a goal of self-determination. We believe that we
    will achieve our goal with your assistance, and we appreciate the your
    consideration of our written testimony. Thank you.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Vincent Randall, Chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on the
    fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        The Yavapai Apache Nation supports the President's Budget for
    fiscal year 2000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for the Indian
    Health Service.
        Our tribe particularly supports the continued and increased funding
    of the initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country. The need for
    improved law enforcement services in Indian Country has been widely
    documented showing that Indian citizens living on the reservations do
    not receive even the minimum level of law enforcement services taken
    for granted in non-Indian communities. For example, with an estimated
    population of 1,430,000 in Indian Country, the police officer to
    citizen ration (2.9 officers per 1,000 citizens) would require at least
    4,290 police officers, an increase of 50 percent over the current
    number of 2,000 sworn officers in Indian Country. There is a need for a
    large infusion of financial resources to make public safety in Indian
    Country comparable to the rest of America. The budget increase in
    fiscal year 2000 is the second year of the four-year initiative.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Law Enforcement Initiative was
    formulated in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
    ensure maximum usage of the Federal dollar. Working together, the BIA
    and DOJ's respective budget requests complement each other to ensure
    that efforts are not duplicated and funding can be provided to tribes
    on a more expansive basis. It is essential that the next step of the
    improvements to law enforcement be funded in the fiscal year 2000
    appropriations act.
        We also want to bring to your attention the critical need for Road
    Construction and Road Maintenance funding for Indian lands. Tribes can
    not be successful in economic development without adequate
    transportation systems. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs has received
    a slight increase nationally in road construction funds from the
    Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 Century (TEA-21), the funding
    for tribes under the jurisdiction of the BIA Phoenix Area Office has
    decreased by more than 50 percent from the funding provided under the
    Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The funding
    for the BIA Phoenix Area was reduced from $26 million per year to $16
    million per year. The Yavapai Apache Nation has immediate needs for
    street improvements and new street construction.
        BIA Road Maintenance funds are also critically inadequate to
    provide even the most basic maintenance of the roads and streets in
    Indian Country. Highway standards are not being met on the large
    majority of reservation roads. Tribes do not receive any of the Highway
    Users Roads Funds (HURF) collected through taxes collected by States
    and Counties on the sale of motor fuels even though the tribes and
    tribal members pay such taxes. The Yavapai Apache Nation's streets
    continue to deteriorate from lack of maintenance. A review of the
    funding process for BIA Roads Maintenance program might be of benefit.
        We do appreciate your listening to our concerns and your efforts to
    improve standards of living in Indian Country.
                                      _____

    Prepared Statement of Thomas Siyuja, Chairman, Havasupai Tribal Council
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on the
    fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        The Havasupai Tribe supports the President's Budget for fiscal year
    2000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for the Indian Health
    Service.
        Our tribe particularly supports the continued and increased funding
    of the initiative for Law Enforcement in Indian Country. Fiscal year
    2000 is the second year of the four-year implementation period. The
    need for improved law enforcement services in Indian Country has been
    widely documented showing that Indian citizens living on the
    reservations do not receive even the minimum level of law enforcement
    services taken for granted in non-Indian communities. Our tribe will
    certainly benefit from improvement in law enforcement services.
        Our Tribe is working hard to improve our academic standards at the
    Havasupai School. However, we can not do so unless we can attract and
    retain qualified teachers and school administrators. We do not have
    adequate housing available for teachers which is the primary cause
    ofturnover exceeding 100 percent per school year. We are a remote
    location and all tribal housing is occupied, usually with extended
    families, in overcrowded conditions. We propose to demolish two
    antiquated and condemned buildings and replace them with two 4-plex
    apartment type units. These two units will meet all of our housing
    needs for the non-local school staff.
        We request a one-time appropriation in the BIA Office of Indian
    Education Programs in the amount of $1,200,000 to demolish two existing
    buildings and replace them with two 4-plex apartment buildings. The
    schematics, drawings, and cost estimates have been developed and
    provided to the BIA.
        We also want to bring to your attention the critical need for Road
    Construction and Road Maintenance funding for Indian lands. Tribes can
    not be successful in economic development without adequate
    transportation systems. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs has received
    a slight increase nationally in road construction funds from the
    Transportation Efficiency for the 21 Century (TEA-21), the funding for
    the tribes under the jurisdiction of the BIA Phoenix Area Office has
    decreased by more than 50 percent from the funding provided under the
    Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The funding
    for the BIA Phoenix Area was reduced from $26 million per year to $16
    million per year.
        BIA Road Maintenance funds are inadequate to provide even the most
    basic maintenance of the roads and streets in Indian Country. Highway
    standards are not being met on the large majority of reservation roads.
    Tribes do not receive any of the Highway Users Roads Funds (HURF)
    collected through taxes collected by States and Counties on the sale of
    motor fuels even though the tribes and tribal members pay such taxes in
    most States. The Havasupai Tribe requests the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee review the need for Roads Maintenance funding and the
    resultant deterioration of most reservation roads and streets.
        We do appreciate your listening to our concerns and your efforts to
    improve standards of living in Indian Country.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of James M. Tutt, President, Crownpoint Institute of
                           Technology, Crownpoint, NM
        This testimony addresses appropriations to the U.S. Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Activity: Special Programs and
    Pooled Overhead, Subactivity: Community Development. This testimony
    also addresses the separate category of BIA Contract Support, which we
    understand automatically accompanies community development
    appropriations.
        On behalf of the students and the community served by the
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology in Crownpoint (CIT), New Mexico, I
    thank you, Chairman Gorton, and the Members of this Subcommittee who so
    kindly provide the opportunity for outside witnesses to present written
    testimony and recommendations.
        The focus of CIT's testimony is the national education funding
    policy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs carried out under appropriations
    made by the Interior Subcommittee. First, I want to express our
    appreciation to this Subcommittee for enabling the operation of
    tribally controlled vocational education, as well as other tribal
    educational institutions. However, we believe that this Subcommittee
    may not be aware of the absence of a fair policy in the distribution of
    the funds that Congress appropriates for this purpose.
        Currently, the Congress through the Interior Subcommittees
    appropriates more than $2 Million for the operation of postsecondary
    tribal vocational education institutions. For fiscal year 2000, the
    Administration budget request is $2.3 Million for Adult Vocational
    Training to tribally controlled vocational institutions. There are only
    two such institutions in the nation, and that total number has remained
    unchanged for two decades. It is also our understanding that an
    automatic indirect cost, or contract support, accompanies this
    appropriation. This indirect cost equates to approximately 23 percent
    of the base appropriation. Although it originates from a separate
    category of the BIA budget, it automatically adds funds to the direct
    appropriation and augments those limited finds.
        CIT recognizes the generosity of the Congress in its appropriations
    to tribally controlled vocational education but wishes to bring to the
    subcommittee's attention the urgent fact that the entire appropriation
    for postsecondary, vocational training is earmarked to one institution,
    the United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, North Dakota. The
    Crownpoint institute of Technology (CIT) in Crownpoint New Mexico is
    one of the only two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
    institutions in our nation. CIT and UTTC are analogous as tribally
    chartered postsecondary vocational education institutions and identical
    in eligibility under the law that funds only one of the two
    institutions. While we recognize that Congressional appropriations must
    have limits, it is discriminatory and violates Congress' own education
    policies to totally exclude one tribal institution, and arbitrarily
    earmark the entire appropriation to another institution that is serving
    the exact same function for Indian students, just from another tribe in
    a different State.
        The Crownpoint Institute of Technology is equally eligible under
    the law that authorizes the appropriation of these funds to the United
    Tribes Technical College in North Dakota. The authorizing law cited is
    the Adult Indian Vocational Training Act (Public Law 84-959). There is
    nothing in this brief 1956 law that would preclude CIT from also
    benefiting, or for that matter, that would justify favoritism to only
    one eligible institution. The Indian Adult Vocational Training Act
    authorizes ``the sum of $3,500,000 for each fiscal year, and not to
    exceed $500,000 of such sum shall be available for administrative
    purposes.'' This authorization would seem sufficient to generously
    contribute training funds to two eligible institutions.
        This ``Indian Adult Vocational Training Act'' is clearly intended
    to fund the costs associated with ``. . . institutional training in any
    recognized vocation or trade'' to help ``adult Indians who reside on or
    near Indian reservations obtain reasonable and satisfactory
    employment.'' CIT's mission is identical to that set forth in this law.
        CIT has outstanding success statistics. CIT is the only vocational
    institution on the Navajo Nation. It primarily serves the Navajo
    population, but is open to and welcomes non-native students as well. In
    past years, CIT has retrained displaced uranium workers from nearby
    towns as just one example of its service to the non-native communities.
    Currently, CIT enrolls 437 students. Of the student body, 51 percent
    are men and 49 percent are women. The average student age is 26,
    although the range has been from age 18 to 64. CIT also offers a small
    day care center for these single parent students, but because of budget
    constraints cannot fully meet the need for day care services.
        CIT is fully accredited by North Central Association of Colleges
    and Schools; the same accrediting agency utilized by dominant society
    educational institutions. CIT offers rigorous educational training
    programs developed to respond to high-demand employment opportunities.
    CIT's programs culminate in one-year certificates or two-year Associate
    degrees. There is only one primary difference between CIT and dominant
    society vocational educational institutions, and this difference is
    that CIT is geographically accessible to reservation residents and
    offers a culturally sensitive learning environment that includes such
    features as instructors bilingual in English and Navajo is the everyday
    spoken language of this region.
        The Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) is also a tribally
    chartered postsecondary institution. Founded in 1979 as the Navajo
    Skill Center, the institution changed its name in 1986 to more
    accurately reflect its evolution from a jobs training center into a
    full-fledged vocational technical college, during which period CIT
    earned fill accreditation from North Central Association of Colleges
    and Schools. CIT offers thirteen certificate vocational and technical
    programs, as well as two-year programs culminating in Associate
    Degrees. These programs are. Administrative Assistant, Accounting ,
    Building Maintenance, Carpentry, Computer Technology, Culinary Arts,
    Electrical Trades, Environmental Technology, Heavy equipment Mechanics,
    Legal Advocate, Natural Resources, Nursing Assistant and Veterinary
    Assistant.
        The Crownpoint Institute of Technology is equally eligible under
    the law that authorizes the appropriation of these funds to the United
    Tribes Technical College in North Dakota. The authorizing law cited is
    the Adult Indian Vocational Training Act (Public Law 84-959). There is
    nothing in this brief 1956 law that would preclude CIT from also
    benefiting, or for that matter, that would justify favoritism to only
    one eligible institution. The Indian Adult Vocational Training Act
    authorizes ``the sum of $3,500,000 for each fiscal year, and not to
    exceed $500,000 of such sum shall be available for administrative
    purposes.'' This authorization would seem sufficient to generously
    contribute training funds to two eligible institutions.
        This ``Indian Adult Vocational Training Act'' is clearly intended
    to fund the costs associated with ``. . . institutional training in any
    recognized vocation or trade'' to help ``adult Indians who reside on or
    near Indian reservations obtain reasonable and satisfactory
    employment.'' CIT's mission is identical to that set forth in this law.
        CIT has outstanding success statistics. CIT is the only vocational
    institution on the Navajo Nation. It primarily serves the Navajo
    population, but is open to and welcomes non-native students as well. In
    past years, CIT has retrained displaced uranium workers from nearby
    towns as just one example of its service to the non-native communities.
    Currently, CIT enrolls 437 students. Of the student body, 51 percent
    are men and 49 percent are women. The average student age is 26,
    although the range has been from age 18 to 64. CIT also offers a small
    day care center for these single parent students, but because of budget
    constraints cannot fully meet the need for day care services.
        CIT is fully accredited by North Central Association of Colleges
    and Schools; the same accrediting agency utilized by dominant society
    educational institutions. CIT offers rigorous educational training
    programs developed to respond to high-demand employment opportunities.
    CIT's programs culminate in one-year certificates or two-year Associate
    degrees. There is only one primary difference between CIT and dominant
    society vocational educational institutions, and this difference is
    that CIT is geographically accessible to reservation residents and
    offers a culturally sensitive learning environment that includes such
    features as instructors bilingual in English and Navajo is the everyday
    spoken language of this region.
        The Crownpoint Institute of Technology is also a tribally chartered
    postsecondary institution. Founded in 1979 as the Navajo Skill Center,
    the institution changed its name in 1986 to more accurately reflect its
    evolution from a jobs training center into a full-fledged vocational
    technical college, during which period CIT earned full accreditation
    from North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. CIT offers
    thirteen certificate vocational and technical programs, as well as two-
    year programs culminating in Associate Degrees. These programs are.
    Administrative Assistant, Accounting, Building Maintenance, Carpentry,
    Computer Technology, Culinary Arts, Electrical Trades, Environmental
    Technology, Heavy equipment Mechanics, Legal Advocate, Natural
    Resources, Nursing Assistant and Veterinary Assistant.
        CIT programs are overseen by Boards of Advisors who are industry
    officials and community leaders involved with the economic sector and
    in particular with private industry. This consistent involvement of the
    economic sector partially explains the fact that CIT boasts a job
    placement average of 87 percent, an average that has been consistently
    near and sometimes above this rate for eight consecutive years.
        A further statistic that CIT is proud to report is that as an
    additional result of our structure that involves Advisors from the
    economic sector, over 61 percent of our known graduates are employed in
    private industry. (Because of budget realities, CIT does not have the
    resources to track 100 percent of its graduates over twenty years. Our
    research evidences that in general, nearly all CIT alumni who have
    relocated distantly have done so for employment reasons). CIT
    instructional programs are very much in touch with where the jobs are,
    and CIT continues to tailor its program offerings to economic demand.
    Partially as a result of the successful job placement reputation that
    CIT has earned over the years, CIT's student retention averages 95
    percent which is also far above the national average for even dominant
    society's best vocational institutions.
        Because of funding constraints, the institution cannot accept all
    applicants and must turn away an average of 200 students each year. The
    primary reason is the shortage of adequate housing. Although the town
    of Crownpoint is one of the reservation's activity centers, it is still
    extremely small and excess housing is virtually non-existent. CIT is a
    campus-based institution, with one dormitory that houses all students.
    This situation creates a particular hardship for married and single-
    parent applicants, who because of family responsibilities are sometimes
    those most urgently in need of job training. Nearly one third of CIT
    students are single, head-of-household with an average of three
    dependents.
        CIT's average applicant has had no education or training beyond
    high school, and therefore has no salable job skills. Over one third of
    CIT students have not completed high school, and as part of its
    instruction, CIT offers GED and remedial education on an as-needed
    basis in order to equip these students with the learning skills to
    successfully make the transition to CIT's postsecondary programs. Over
    50 percent of the individuals who enroll in CIT's remedial and high
    school equivalency courses complete the course and earn their GED
    diplomas. CIT offers rigorous vocational technical programs of
    excellence in a culturally responsive academic environment. Nearly all
    CIT students speak English as a second language as Navajo is the
    everyday spoken language of most of the reservation. Nearly all CIT
    students come to the institution from an environment where no
    employment prospects exist for them. Their backgrounds have largely
    been absent any opportunities to learn specialized job skills that can
    empower them to achieve meaningful employment opportunities. Without
    the educational and training opportunities offered by CIT, most of
    these individuals and their dependents would have no alternatives but
    to begin or remain on welfare subsistence. At least 20 percent of CIT
    students seek their livelihoods through maintaining livestock and
    remaining on their traditional lands. CIT is able to assist these
    individuals in achieving an improved quality of life for themselves and
    their families through its Veterinary Assistant and Environmental
    programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Bruce Wynne, Chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians
        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
    Spokane Tribe of Indians, I am pleased to submit this testimony on the
    proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the BIA and IHS.
        The Tribe is located in Eastern Washington, has 2,267 members and a
    Reservation of 156,000 acres. While the Spokane Tribe was historically
    a fishing tribe, we now rely primarily on timber for tribal income.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        General.--The Spokane Tribe supports the overall increase of $155.6
    million over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs.
        Tribally Controlled Community Colleges.--We support the President's
    proposed increase of $7.1 million for funding for the Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges. This money will be used to increase
    operating grants for the 26 Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, for
    a proposed fiscal year 2000 level of $38.4 million. We believe this
    minimum amount is necessary to maintain stable and productive colleges
    on Indian reservations. The Spokane Tribal College is in its early
    stages of development. We are proud of our accomplishments to date and
    look forward to full participation in the tribal colleges program in
    the near future.
        We are hopeful that this Subcommittee, despite the funding
    limitations for all domestic discretionary programs in fiscal year
    2000, will be able to give priority consideration to funding for tribal
    colleges, as was urged in the recent ``sense of the Senate'' provision
    as Section 312 of the Senate fiscal year 2000 budget resolution. S.
    Con. Res. 20 appropriately notes that although funding for tribal
    colleges received an increase in fiscal year 1999, tribal colleges
    faced an actual per-student decrease in funding over fiscal year 1998,
    and per student funding for tribal colleges is only about 63 percent of
    the amount given to mainstream community colleges.
        Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA).--The Spokane Tribe supports the
    proposed net increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted levels of $17
    million in TPA funding for fiscal year 2000. This would bring total TPA
    funding in fiscal year 2000 to $716 million. The TPA funding is the
    lifeblood of tribal governments. It is the money tribes receive to
    support services for their people. The United States' obligation to
    provide funds for tribal health, education and welfare programs is part
    of the treaty guarantees made to tribes by the United States in return
    for the cession of millions and millions of acres of land. We
    especially support the proposed $6.1 million increase for contract
    support for on-going contracts. Our tribal contracts support costs are
    now funded at only 80 percent. We also support the proposed $2.1
    million for the Tribal Work Experience Programs.
        Decreases in prior years in TPA funding have left tribes actually
    losing in terms of adjustments for inflation. Mr. Chairman, we use
    these TPA funds for many purposes, including tribal government
    infrastructure, services for children and the elderly, scholarships,
    education, courts, law enforcement, adult vocational education,
    training, agriculture and forestry. The funds must be stretched very
    thin for all programs. The services the Tribe is expected to deliver
    versus the amount of our contracts for these programs does not fulfill
    the BIA's trust responsibility. In addition, the introduction of
    Welfare Reform has placed an unexpected burden on our Education
    programs.
        We ask the Subcommittee to support the President's proposed
    increases for TPA and to add more , if possible, to this account which
    targets spending at the local level. An across-the-board ten percent
    increase over the President's budget proposal would be of great benefit
    to all tribes nationwide.
        Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT).--The proposed budget would
    increase the UCUT program by only $10,000. An increase of at least
    $350,000 is critically needed for this important program.
        The UCUT program serves the vital interests of the five tribal
    entities in the geographic region above the Grand Coulee Dam (the
    Confederated Colville Tribe, and the Coeur d'Alene, Kalispel, Kootenai
    and Spokane Tribes). Operations of hydroelectric facilities, as well as
    contamination from mining, industrial and sewage facilities,
    agriculture and other development, continue to have devastating impacts
    on the UCUT Tribes' cultural, fish and wildlife and water resources.
    UCUT appropriations are used to implement, monitor and evaluate natural
    and cultural resource plans, and to coordinate management activities
    with state, federal and other tribal governments.
        In fiscal year 1999, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
    Reservation formally joined UCUT, adding the interests of 8,000 more
    tribal members and 1.4 million additional acres of Reservation lands to
    the realm of UCUT concerns. Combined, the five UCUT tribal entities
    represent 16,221 tribal members and 1,905,879 acres of land resources.
    The Tribal Councils of UCUT have reinforced UCUT's mission to address
    not only fish and wildlife, but also cultural matters, water resources,
    and economic development issues common to all the UCUT members Tribes.
    The UCUT Tribes participate actively in regional intergovernmental
    forums related to UCUT mission topics, and need funding sufficient to
    continue and expand the UCUT mission.
        The President's budget request of $310,000 does not include even an
    inflationary increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Further,
    the fiscal year 1999 UCUT appropriation was actually less than the
    previous year's funding. A significant increase is needed now to insure
    that the Tribes can maintain their fish and wildlife activities, as
    well as to cover the expanded mission of issues crucial to protection
    of cultural and water resources as required by numerous federal laws.
    Assessed funding needs for this program are just over $650,000. This
    includes base funding of $100,000 for each Tribe and a modest budget of
    $150,000 to cover the costs for a central office to coordinate, provide
    policy analysis, and serve as a liaison for the member tribes.
        Law Enforcement Programs.--The Spokane Tribe strongly supports the
    proposed increase of $20 million for BIA law enforcement programs. This
    is the second year of the Department of the Interior's joint program
    with the Department of Justice on the Law Enforcement Initiative in
    Indian County. The increase will be used for personnel, equipment and
    detention services, all badly needed at Spokane.
        While we know that funding for the Justice Department programs for
    Indian law enforcement programs is not in the Subcommittee's
    jurisdiction, we do want to express our support for the President's
    proposed increases in those programs as well, which will provide
    additional resources for investigation and prosecution of crime in
    Indian Country, programs to address alcohol and substance abuse
    programs in Indian Country, the improvement of tribal courts,
    construction of correctional facilities, and police education and
    training in Indian Country.
                             indian health service
        The Spokane Tribe supports the proposed increase for fiscal year
    2000 totaling $170 million over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for
    the Indian Health Service. Virtually every program operated by the IHS
    is seriously underfunded and has been for years. We urge the Congress
    to begin to provide the funding needed to address the critical health
    needs of Indian people by supporting the Administration's fiscal year
    2000 request.
        The Spokane Tribe of Indians is also concerned about the
    regulations that limit a tribe's ability to contract Indian health
    programs in urban areas. Tribes such as ours that are located near a
    major urban area have tribal members residing in the urban areas who
    are unable to receive services from IHS because there is no urban
    Indian health care provider. The Spokane metropolitan area has been
    without formal care and service for the past several years. The Spokane
    Tribe would like to have the ability to contract this service from IHS,
    through a special waiver, if necessary.
        Finally, we wish to call to this Subcommittee's attention the need
    for funding to state and local governments for health care services to
    pass through and be provided directly to the tribes that will provide
    the services to people in our communities.
        The Spokane Tribe also supports the testimony of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board in its entirety. Thank you very much.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Robert Clark, Executive Director, Bristol Bay
                               Area Health Corp.
        The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) submits this
    statement on the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2000 Indian
    Health Service budget. In summary, our recommendations are:
      --Fund mandatory costs increases for inflation, pay and population
            growth, for which the Administration has requested $34.7
            million for inflation and pay raises and IHS estimates the need
            at $93 million (not including increases for population growth);
      --Fully fund contract support costs, which IHS estimates there is
            over a $100 million shortfall;
      --Increase funding for the Community Health Aide Program for Alaska
            by $20 million;
      --Increase the leasing authority for Village Built Clinics by lifting
            the cap of 170 allowable leases;
      --Provide $10 million to fund Patient Travel for Alaska programs; and
      --Funding for patient transport vehicles and vehicle storage
            buildings.
                                   background
        The BBAHC is a private, non-profit corporation organized in June
    1973 by the Alaska Native villages of the region. BBAHC serves more
    than 8,000 year-round residents and 34 villages within the Bristol Bay,
    Calista and Koniaq regions--three of Alaska's twelve regions as divided
    under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The region is
    46,573 square miles, an area nearly the size of the state of New York
    and larger than nineteen of the ``Lower 48'' states. BBAHC's health
    care services include hospital services, family medicine, and other
    preventative and community health care.
        In 1980, BBAHC became the first Native organization in the United
    States to assume full management of an Indian Health Service operation
    and health services program under the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act. The BBAHC-administered Kanakanak Hospital is
    accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare
    Organizations. BBAHC became a member of the Alaska Tribal Health
    Compact in 1994, and since that time has administered health programs
    under Title III of the Self-Determination Act.
                            mandatory cost increases
        As you are no doubt aware, inadequate funding for mandatory cost
    increases over the past several years has forced tribal and IHS health
    programs to redirect funding from other urgently needed health care
    services, thereby restricting the extent of services we would otherwise
    be able to provide. In Alaska, we feel the impact of inadequate
    mandatory cost increases acutely as a result of our higher costs of
    living. For example, the cost of living in Dillingham is 20 percent
    higher than the average cost of living in the lower 48 states, with the
    cost of living in the villages averaging 5 percent higher than
    Dillingham.
        The proposed fiscal year 2000 IHS budget would provide tribal and
    IHS programs $34.5 million for pay costs and inflation.\1\ However,
    this amount does not include population growth. So a more reasonable
    figure for built-in costs is $146 million. We also note that the IHS
    figures for shortfall for mandatory pay raises is calculated for
    federal employees only--it does not include funding for persons hired
    directly by BBAHC or other tribal health care providers. We at BBAHC
    estimate that under the fiscal year 2000 request, we will be forced to
    absorb $1.25 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ According to the IHS budget justification document, their
    estimated shortfall of $92.9 million is the combined need for pay costs
    and inflation. IHS based the figure on 2.1 percent non-medical and 3.8
    percent medical inflation rates and a 4.4 percent pay raise. No funding
    was requested for population growth, which is estimated at 2 percent
    per year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If Congress does not provide additional funds for mandatory cost
    increases in fiscal year 2000, BBAHC and other tribal health care
    organizations will have to make some hard choices. An example of a kind
    of health service reduction we may have to make is in the purchase of
    specialized health services, such as OB-GYNs and other health care
    specialists who are not on the permanent staff of the hospital in
    Dillingham. We purchase the specialized services of these medical
    personnel to come to our hospital for special need patients.
                             contract support costs
        We are encouraged that the Administration's proposal for IHS
    contract support costs provides an increase of $35 million. However,
    BBAHC strongly urges Congress to consider the recommendation of the
    Alaska Native Health Board which seeks full funding of the estimated
    contract support shortfall of over $100 million. This amount takes into
    account those tribes currently receiving contract support as well as
    those on the waiting list (or queue). Without additional funds, tribes
    will continue to be denied their right to assume local control over
    federal Indian programs, such as health care, or be financially
    penalized for electing to exercise that right.
        BBAHC also concurs with the Alaska Native Health Board in calling
    on Congress to refrain from imposing systemic changes to the contract
    support process before several ongoing efforts have been completed.
    These efforts--a General Accounting Office report on IHS and BIA
    contract support that is due in June 1999, a federal-tribal workgroup
    effort on contract support led by the National Congress of American
    Indians, and an IHS workgroup on contract support--may provide Congress
    a fresh approach to establishing a fair and equitable process for the
    distribution of contract support.
        The BBAHC also opposes any legislative provision which would
    restrict a tribe's ability to contract, such as the moratorium on new
    and expanded contracts enacted in fiscal year 1999, or any other
    similar legislative mandate. Finally, we request that Congress require
    the IHS to report the need for contract support in an accurate and
    timely manner.
                     community health aide program increase
        BBAHC is working with the Alaska Native Health Board and others to
    update the report on the Community Health Aide program, CHA/P in
    Crisis. The report findings on problems faced by the CHA/P include
    below-standard salaries, high attrition rates, and lack of support and
    training. The program has been a model system for delivery of low cost
    primary care to patients residing in the rural areas of Alaska. The
    trained CHA/P personnel act as primary care physicians and emergency
    care staff, primarily in the remote areas of Alaska--several hundred
    miles away from any physician-based facility. Although the program
    received some increase in funding several years ago, it is again on the
    verge of crisis unless funds are provided to meet the increased costs.
    As you are no doubt aware, the alternative to this system of care would
    be very costly, both in terms of dollars and in patient care.
        BBAHC concurs with ANHB and others in making the following
    recommendations to Congress: raise CHA/P salaries to a standard of $20
    per hour, increase funding for training centers and for support costs
    in the village clinics. We too urge full support of the CHA/P program
    by to including at least $20 million in the fiscal year 2000 Indian
    Health Services Budget for these essential services.
                      village-built clinic leasing program
        Through the leasing authority of the Alaska Area Native Health
    Service (AANHS) under the Village-Built Clinic leasing program, BBAHC
    has two outstanding requests for clinic leases, one for a clinic at
    Portage Creek and the other for a clinic at South Shore Aleknagik.
    According to the AANHS it has, as of 1997, reached the 170 lease limit
    it is authorized to fund.
        Additional funds are needed for making upgrades, modifications and
    additions to existing village-built clinics and where appropriate,
    replace existing clinics. For example, modifications to provide more
    square footage is essential. Currently, due to space limitations in the
    village clinics, during periods when visiting doctors are using the
    clinics to attend to patients, clinic staff have at times needed to
    perform on-going clinic services from their homes. These much-needed
    improvements, which could be funded through a new program similar to
    the Maintenance and Improvement Program, are above and beyond the realm
    of the current leasing program.
        We strongly urge that the AANHS Village-Built Clinic leasing
    program be increased from 170 to at least 180, and that a commensurate
    increase in funding be appropriated for the additional leases. These
    clinics are vital to enabling the Community Health Aide Practitioners,
    doctors, dentists and others to provide health services to village
    residents.
                                 patient travel
        The BBAHC, as well as other Alaska Native health care providers, is
    faced with a critical and expensive component of health care in
    Alaska--patient access to health care. Although the Community Health
    Aid Program and physician assistants provide basic health care at the
    village level, those who need a doctor's care and other procedures must
    travel by air to those services. Additionally, there are related costs
    such as lodging and meals. Consequently, up to 40 percent of rural
    Alaska Natives needing diagnostic services or treatment deferred having
    it done because of costs for airfare, cab fare, and lodging. (Access to
    Care: Crisis for Alaska Native, 1991.) Even with the new Alaska Native
    Medical Center in Anchorage providing limited accommodations for family
    members accompanying a patient, it is not enough to house all those in
    need.
        Therefore, we urge that Congress provide for the Alaska health care
    programs an increase of $10 million for patient travel. This is the
    need in excess of that covered by various third party coverage which is
    also tapped where/when appropriate.
                           patient transport vehicles
        Federal Aviation Administration regulations now require that
    landing strips be located further from villages than in the past.
    Previously, airplanes landing strips that were located on the edge of
    villages or in villages were in danger of hitting power lines. With the
    safety regulations in place, the distance of airstrips from village
    clinics is 7 miles in our area. This has resulted in our no longer
    being able to simply transport a patient from an airplane to the clinic
    by hand carrying, sled or a small vehicle. We are also concerned that
    lack of proper transport vehicles will became an issue for JCAHO
    accreditation.
        For these reasons, we need vehicles in which to transport patients
    to and from airstrips, airports, village clinics. We also need heated
    buildings in which to store the vehicles. Our estimate for the cost of
    16 patient transport vehicles, including shipping costs and heated
    buildings in which to store them is $1.4 million.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns on the health
    needs of people in the Bristol Bay Area in Alaska and of Native people
    throughout the nation.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Ronald J. Wopsock, Chairman, Tribal Business
     Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
                                  introduction
        My name is Ronald J. Wopsock. I am Chairman of the Tribal Business
    Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
    in Utah. I am providing this written testimony in support of the
    Department of the Interior's proposed appropriation for the Ute Tribe's
    water settlement. The proposed appropriation of $27.5 million is a
    portion of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' ``Indian Land and Water Claim
    Settlements'' appropriation and is in partial fulfillment of the
    obligations and promises made by the United States to the Ute Tribe in
    1965 and reconfirmed by Congress in 1992. Those obligations and
    promises are set forth in the Ute Indian Rights Settlement, Title V of
    the Central Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 102-575, 106 Stat.
    4600, 4650 (Oct. 30, 1992). The purpose of the Settlement is, in part,
    to settle long-outstanding claims held by the Tribe relating to the
    failure to construct features of the Central Utah Project (``CUP'')
    contemplated in the September 20, 1965 Agreement between the Tribe, the
    United States and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
    (``CUWCD''). The proposed fiscal year 2000 appropriation is to
    partially fund the Tribal Development Fund authorized in section 506 of
    the Settlement.
        The Ute Indian Tribe is pleased with the opportunity to present its
    views to this distinguished Subcommittee. The Tribe looks forward to
    working with the members to assure passage of the proposed
    appropriation, which will provide a critical step in completing the
    funding of the Tribe's Water Settlement; funding that is vital to the
    economic development of the Tribe and its members.
                              the ute indian tribe
        The Ute Indian Tribe is made-up of three bands, the Uintah,
    Whiteriver and Uncompahgre. The Reservation is made up of two separate
    reservations: the Uintah Valley Reserve established in 1861; and the
    Uncompahgre Reserve established in 1882. Together they encompass nearly
    4.5 million acres of Indian trust, fee and federal land. Approximately
    1,000,000 acres of Reservation land is held in trust for the Tribe.
        Approximately 3,300 tribal members live on the Reservation. They
    suffer from the highest unemployment rate in the entire Uintah Basin.
    While the Reservation is blessed with oil and gas resources, employment
    opportunities are limited. Other ``modern'' employment opportunities
    are proscribed by the lack of additional economic development. The
    Tribe and a few tribal members do engage in agricultural enterprises
    which provide only limited economic returns. Fish and wildlife
    resources are extremely important to the Tribe and could, if properly
    developed and managed, offer greater economic opportunities.
        As I previously noted, in 1965 the Tribe, United States and CUWCD
    entered into what is commonly referred to as the Deferral Agreement. In
    that Agreement, the Tribe deferred the development of over 15,000 acres
    of tribal land, thereby making available up to 60,000 acre-feet of
    water annually to assure a sufficient water supply for the Bonneville
    Unit of the CUP. That Unit is the principal component of Utah's water
    supply future. It is one of the most complex and expensive
    transmountain diversion projects ever built by the Bureau of
    Reclamation. The project diverts water, including the 60,000 acre-feet
    made available by the Tribe, from the streams in the Uinta Basin and
    transports the water westward across the Wasatch Mountains to Salt Lake
    and Utah counties. In exchange for its substantial and essential
    contribution, the Tribe was to receive a substitute water supply from
    storage in two large dams proposed as the final units of the CUP. The
    dams were never built and the replacement water never delivered. If the
    Settlement is fully funded no later that January 1, 2005, the 60,000
    acre-feet of tribal water will continue to be transported annually
    across the Wasatch Mountains. If not, the Tribe can demand the return
    of the water.
                        the ute indian rights settlement
        The Ute Indian Rights Settlement was passed by Congress and signed
    by the President in October, 1992. The facts surrounding this
    Settlement make it distinct from other Indian water settlements. The
    United States had a contractual obligation to the Tribe which it failed
    to fulfill. The Settlement represents substitute consideration for the
    dams promised in 1965, not enticement to enter a settlement of the
    Tribe's water right claims. Below is a brief summary of the status of
    the appropriations previously made by Congress as authorized in the
    Settlement, and the work the Tribe has undertaken with those funds.
        Section 504--Farm Assistance Programs.--Congress has fully funded
    the Tribe's farming programs, found in section 504 of the Settlement.
    The Tribe has utilized those funds to: (a) complete a tribal feedlot,
    which is now in operation and employs 4 full-time and 5 part-time
    tribal members; (b) provide assistance to over 100 small farm and ranch
    operations owned and operated by tribal members; (c) improve the water
    delivery system in the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project by piping open
    ditches and installing sprinklers; and, (d) establish a tribal farming
    co-op which provides equipment and on-farm labor to small tribal
    farmer. Overall, the Tribe's agricultural operation employs 13 full-
    time tribal members.
        Section 505--Stream Habitat, Environmental and Recreational
    Improvements.--Section 505, which provides funds for various stream and
    habitat improvement projects, has been partially funded. The Tribe has
    used a portion of these funds to establish an Aquatics Department that
    has actively undertaken stream and fishery habitat improvements and has
    developed extensive in-house data collection and technical review
    capabilities. The Tribe also has implemented several big game programs
    designed to enhance and properly manage the Tribe's wildlife resources.
    The Fish and Wildlife Department, including the Aquatics Department,
    employs approximately 35 full or part-time tribal members in activities
    directly related to programs funded under section 505. The remaining
    amounts approved under Section 505 are not included in the fiscal year
    2000 appropriation.
        Section 506--Economic Development Programs.--Appropriations for the
    ``Tribal Development Fund'', the largest and most important program in
    the Settlement, began in fiscal year 1997 and continued in fiscal year
    1998 and 1999 at an appropriation level of $25.0 million. The entire
    amount of the proposed fiscal year 2000 appropriation (less penalties)
    is for the Tribal Development Fund under Section 506. The purpose of
    the Fund and economic projects undertaken by the Tribe are described
    more fully below.
                          the tribal development fund
        Section 506 of the Settlement establishes a Tribal Development Fund
    ``to be appropriated [in] a total amount of $125,000, 000 to be paid in
    #T3three annual and equal installments. . . .'' (Due to inflation
    factors statutorily applied to the 1992 authorization, the authorized
    amount has increased over the past seven years to approximately $145
    million.) In fiscal years 1997-1999, Congress made $25.0 million
    appropriations for the Tribal Development Fund. However, these
    appropriations did not meet the statutory requirement of equal one-
    third installments. Instead, Congress decided to reduce the
    appropriations and ``adjust'' future appropriations in accordance with
    section 506 (b). That subsection provides that an adjustment will be
    made by the Secretary which represents the interest income ``that would
    have been earned on any unpaid amounts'' if Congress failed to fully
    fund the Development Fund in three annual and equal installments. As a
    result, the fiscal year 1998 and 1999 appropriations included $4.7
    million in penalties. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation includes an
    approximate $5.08 million penalty.
        The Settlement limits the Tribe to spending only the interest
    derived from the Development Fund on it economic projects. The Tribe
    also is required, under section 506, to prepare a Tribal Development
    Plan setting forth its economic development projects. That Plan must be
    approved by two independent financial consultants approved by the
    Secretary.
        Following receipt of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, the Tribe
    retained its financial consultants and began a broad review and
    analysis of potential on-Reservation economic development programs. As
    a result of that process, the Tribe has completed the construction of a
    much needed full service grocery store, centrally located on the
    Reservation, and a mini-mart and truck stop. Both are now in successful
    operation and employ approximately 47 tribal members.
        The Tribe cannot fully evaluate, develop or implement a
    comprehensive plan to both create and foster additional economically
    viable enterprises on the Reservation or invest in outside economic
    ventures until the Development Fund is fully funded. It is vital,
    therefore, that funding be completed as quickly as possible to allow
    the Tribe to determine with some accuracy the amount of interest that
    will be available for economic development on an annual basis. The
    Tribe can only develop a comprehensive, well-planned economic
    development program when it knows the amount available to the program
    for economic investment on a year-to-year basis.
                  the proposed fiscal year 2000 appropriation
        Congress clearly recognized and understood in 1992, that the
    Development Fund should be fully funded as quickly as possibly to
    foster economic development on the Reservation. The Fund is a critical
    component of the Tribe's efforts to secure economic self-sufficiency in
    the future. That process cannot be fully implemented until funding is
    complete. The proposed appropriation of $27.5 million represents a
    small increase over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation, which was $25
    million.
        There are several fiscally related reasons for supporting the full
    $27.5 million appropriation recommended in the budget. First, funding
    at that level will assure that the January 1, 2005 deadline is met;
    funding at reduced levels, $25 million for example, risk that this
    deadline will not be met. Second, the overall budget for Indian Land
    and Water Claim Settlements continues to be reduced, this year by
    approximately $480,000.00, even with the small increase in the Tribe's
    Settlement appropriation. This is because several other settlements
    were completed in fiscal year 1999. Thus, there is a good opportunity
    to provide funding for the Ute Settlement, bring it closer to
    completion, while providing an overall budget reduction for the Indian
    Land and Water Claim Settlement.
        Finally, the United States is required to pay a penalty for its
    failure to fully fund the Tribe's Development Fund in three equal
    annual installments. It makes good long-term (and short term) sense to
    make the full $27.5 million appropriation because failing to do so
    costs the United States additional money. The fiscal year 1997, 1998
    and 1999 funding levels were less than required under the Settlement.
    As a result, the fiscal year 1998 appropriation included a $1.5 million
    penalty and the fiscal year 1999 appropriation include a $3.2 million
    penalty. It is estimated that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will
    include a $5.08 million penalty. The more the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation is reduced, the greater the penalty in subsequent years.
        It is important to recognize in reviewing this proposed
    appropriation that $27.5 million falls well short of what was clearly
    anticipated and promised by Congress in 1992. It does not amount to a
    full one-third of the overall authorization and it does not replace the
    shortfalls from previous years. At the proposed rate, the Tribe's
    Settlement will not be fully funded until fiscal year 2003. Until then,
    the Tribe can initiate only limited economic development programs that
    will fall well short of the economic development envisioned by Congress
    and essential to the Tribe and its members.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of the Tribal Business Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe,
    I would like to express my gratitude to the Subcommittee for this
    opportunity to present the Tribe's statement in support of the proposed
    $27.5 million water settlement. The Tribe and the United States have
    worked together for many years to realize the economic benefits
    promised when the Tribe provided water to assure the completion of one
    of the West's grandest water development projects--the Central Utah
    Project. We are now close to completing what has been a long process.
    The proposed appropriation of $27.5 million is a critical step in
    bringing this matter to a close and fulfilling the obligations
    undertaken by the United States in 1965 and reaffirmed by Congress in
    1992.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Tucker, Vice Chairman, Sycuan Band of
                                Mission Indians
        Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, I am Daniel Tucker,
    Vice Chairman of the Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, located in
    southern California. I thank this Committee for selecting me to present
    oral testimony on the fiscal year 2000 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and Indian Health Service.
        The Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, a Federally recognized Tribe,
    was created by Executive Order in 1875, and allotted a one square mile
    reservation. We were organized under Articles of Association approved
    by the Secretary of the Interior on August 18, 1972. The Sycuan Band
    consists of 104 Tribal members, approximately fifty percent are under
    the age of 18. For the last 125 years we have occupied the same one
    square mile plot of land.
        We have utilized the minimal amount of land available to us to
    develop gaming enterprises. As a so-called gaming tribe, we have made
    advances in our social, economic and health care initiatives for our
    people. However, it has come at great expense as we are continually
    thwarted in our efforts to achieve economic self-sufficiency due to the
    vacillating federal policies, state political interests and corporate
    profiteers who wish to eliminate our pre-Constitutional status as
    sovereign nations.
       publication of interior's gaming procedures for tribal governments
        In November 1998, the citizens of the State of California passed
    State Proposition #5 (approving a model Compact) by a margin of 63
    percent to 37 percent which protected the rights of Indian tribes to
    pursue gaming ventures. We hope this action by the people sent a clear
    message to this Congress and the Administration that the American
    people support our rights as legitimate governments, and that Federal
    policy and subsequent appropriations should be reflective of the
    peoples mandate for fairness to Indian people in California and
    elsewhere.
        The moratorium which prohibited the publication of the Department
    of the Interior's Gaming Procedures for Tribal Governments expired on
    March 31, 1999. Unfortunately, individuals continue to threaten our
    financial resources as evidenced by the Senate version of the fiscal
    year 1999 Supplemental Appropriations bill (S. 544) that contains a
    rider which would undercut the Secretary's ability to go forward with
    the Class III gaming procedures. We are pleased that the U.S. House of
    Representatives' companion measure (H.R. 1141) does not contain such a
    provision.
        We request that as the Committee with jurisdiction over Indian
    appropriations matters, you will not consider any such appropriations
    rider in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations measure.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)
    Workgroup has been meeting steadily throughout this past year to
    develop recommendations to the Congress for the TPA budget process.
    Tribes have developed meaningful solutions and we hope this Committee
    will give fair consideration to their viewpoints when their final
    report is submitted.
    Redistribution of TPA funding
        The Congress included a provision in the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations bill which allowed for ``prosperous'' tribes to return
    their TPA shares to the BIA for redistribution to other tribes. The
    Sycuan Band of Mission Indians strongly believes that tribes who elect
    this option should be allowed to determine where its respective shares
    are redistributed.
    Redistribution of TPA authorized on an annual basis only
        Furthermore, any such tribe that agrees to have its shares
    redistributed should consent to the redistribution on an annual basis
    only. Thus, the tribe is able to protect its right to access TPA
    funding in future years should its economy suffer, especially in light
    of the aggressive outside efforts to corrupt tribal gaming enterprises.
    TPA redistribution to be treated as non-recurring funds
        In the event TPA shares are redistributed to another tribe, those
    funds should be identified as non-recurring, and therefore, not
    eligible to be included in another tribes base funding.
                             indian health service
        More than 20 years ago, we established a medical clinic on our
    reservation. Sycuan has a 638 Contract with IHS to provide health care
    to any American Indian in need of medical attention. However, in order
    to maintain a quality of service to our patients, it has become
    necessary for the Tribe to subsidize our operating budget for the
    facility. The basic service area consists of East San Diego County,
    however, patients throughout the greater San Diego area are treated.
    The total number of patients served annually is in excess of 3,000
    individuals. This includes the eighteen area Tribes, as well as a
    number of non-Indians. Although we have been able to subsidize our
    clinic's budget so far, cuts in IHS funding are always a concern.
        We are pleased that the Administration has submitted a budget to
    Congress that increases funding by $170 million. Although this is far
    short of the IHS/Tribal/Urban Budget Formulation Committee's $8 billion
    dollar estimated need, and is also far less than the $500 million
    increase requested by the Secretary of the Department of Health and
    Human Services, we hope the Committee will take action to ensure an
    increase in funds for Tribal managed health facilities, programs,
    services and activities.
    Contract support costs
        The Administration and the Congress have both recognized the need
    to increase contract support costs funding as well. However, the amount
    requested by the Administration does not meet the costs needed to bring
    tribes up to the level of funding needed to adequately sustain health
    care operations. Direct and Indirect funding should be increased to
    bring tribes up to par with other Federal health care programs,
    equitable to the per capita costs for patient care other citizens
    enjoy.
    Funding to support the elevation of the IHS director
        We also ask this Committee to include funding necessary to support
    the elevation of the Director of the Indian Health Service to the
    position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Health. The salary for this
    position must be commensurate with the pay received by other Assistant
    Secretaries within the Department.
               bureau of indian affairs and indian health service
    Moratorium on new and expanded programs
        For fiscal year 1999, Congress passed a moratorium on new and
    expanded contracts, compacts, grants and cooperative agreements. This
    action was contrary to long-standing Federal Indian policy. The Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law
    93-638, authorizes tribes to exercise their right to contract or
    compact and to receive full funding for the programs contracted or
    compacted by an Indian tribe, including necessary contract support
    costs. In fiscal year 1999 Congress reversed its policy which can only
    been viewed as bad faith to the Indian people. We implore the Committee
    to object to any such provision that may be proposed for fiscal year
    2000.
        In conclusion, I urge this Committee to give priority consideration
    in budget allocations to the strengthening of Tribal governments, the
    delivery of services directly to Indian people, and the development of
    Tribal infrastructures and economies.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Jason L. Joseph, Chairman, Sauk-Suiattle Indian
                                     Tribe
        My name is Jason L. Joseph, Chairman of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian
    Tribe of Washington State, presenting our written testimony by
    summarizing our tribal requests and concerns. It is an honor to present
    to you the needs and concerns of the Sauk-Suiattle people. The requests
    for increases are to be added to the base budgets in the fiscal year
    2000 on the following priority.
                     tribal level appropriations priorities
        (1) +$190,000 to Tribal Budget Base for Government Operations in
    the BIA TPA Tribal Government Account for a planner/grants writer, a
    business development/management assistant, office equipment. This is in
    addition to the $160,000 minimum received in FY-98 by the Tribe per
    appropriations language for every tribe. Request 100 percent Indirect
    Costs;
        (2) +$250,000 for Law Enforcement & return it to TPA: to secure
    office space, hire and purchase equipment for two officers, a
    Probation/Truant Officer, detention facilities with necessary equipment
    to allow short term holding facilities, in the BIA TPA, Public Safety
    and Justice, Law Enforcement Tribal Agency Account.
        (3) +$200,000 for Tribal Budget Base to support Tribal Court;
    Prosecutor, Public Defender, Court Clerk and for Court Operations. to
    be added to BIA TPA, Public Safety and Justice, Tribal Courts Budget
    Base;
        (4) +$375,000 to develop economic enterprises, added to BIA Tribal
    Government Account;
        (5) +$200,000 for Cultural Resource funding with continual funding
    as there was not a formal anthropological study done which is specific
    to Sauk-Suiattle. Also, for Land Acquisition Study to determine a land
    base for the Tribal Members to return to their Ancestral Home, to
    identify economic development initiatives that could generate Tribal
    revenue for jobs and to decrease federal dependency. To be added to the
    BIA Office of Trust Responsibility Account;
        (6) +$30,000 Increase Higher Education scholarships in the BIA
    Education Scholarship Account;
        (7) +$75,000 to Tribal Base for Indian Child Welfare for
    administrative staff and additional counselors to work with children
    and dysfunctional families, in the BIA TPA for Human Services, ICWA
    Account;
        (8) Place current new 13 acres land adjacent to the Tribe's
    Administrative Office into Trust land status, which will not to be used
    for gaming. Also, the Caskey Lake 50.8 acres land, 3 miles from the
    reservation to be transferred into trust land status;
        (9) Request title for the Tenas Creek and Suiattle Cemetery lands,
    plus two additional 15 acres surrounding the two cemetery parcels. This
    is necessary to clear up the ownership, multiple jurisdiction and joint
    responsibilities that now exists. These are sacred sites that need
    protection. It will clear up the US Forest Service, BIA, or Sauk-
    Suiattle ownership.
        (10) +$350,000 replace 360,000 gallon cement domestic Water Storage
    Tank for health & safety.
                       regional appropriations priorities
    Support affiliated tribes of northwest indians
        1. For Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board fiscal year 2000
    request on appropriations
        2. Contract support increase funding of $100 million by NWPAIHB
        3. Oppose pro-rata distribution of fiscal year 1999 contract
    support funds, oppose $5 mil. cut in CHR
        4. For Sovereign Immunity, against taxation, for Land-Into-Trust
    Support northwest indian fisheries commission
        1. Contract Support Costs (Indirect Cost) Funding at 100 percent
        2. BIA Forest Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest
    Plan $3.0 Million and from this amount, ``Jobs in the Woods''
    initiative of $400,000
        3. Washington Tribal Shellfish Management, Enhancement, and
    Enforcement Funding to Implement Tribal Treaty Rights through the
    Establishment of Base Shellfish Operations $1.95 Million.
        4. Salmon restoration funding
        5. Timber, Fish and Wildlife Module $4 million
    National appropriations priorities
        1. Support the Administration's Request of $1.9 billion for BIA and
    $2.8 billion for IHS
        2. Full Funding of Contract Support Costs for BIA & Indian Health
    Service. Remove the fiscal year 1999 `638 contracting moratorium.
    Oppose proposed $5 mil. cuts in CHR program
        3. BIA Tribal Priority Allocations request of $716 million, plus
    the small and Needy Tribes Appropriation minimum.
        4. Elevate IHS Director to Asst. Sec.; Increase IHS funding for
    HIV/AIDS, Diabetes--inflation, increase of medical costs, related
    medicines, breast & cervical cancer
        5. Law Enforcement funding at $20 Million
        6. Increase tribal court funding to $58.4 Million as authorized
    under the Indian Tribal Justice Act, PL 103-176. Reauthorize Act as
    resources are needed. (Pres. $2.6 mil)
                        background, small & needy tribe
        The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe has 235 members and is signatory to
    the Treaty of Point Elliott in 1855. A land survey was conducted to
    establish a reservation base for our Tribe but, never finalized due to
    the untimely death of the surveyor. We were a land less tribe prior to
    1980 when we purchased 23 acres of land for our reservation near our
    original homelands in the foot hills of the Cascade Mountains. As a
    small tribe, our needs are magnified, as the basic tribal government
    support resources just aren't available. All the operations are under
    grants and contracts, as there are no tribal funds, meaning shortfalls
    and reductions cannot be covered by the Tribe.
                          priority requests-narrative
        Increase in Core Tribal Government Staff.--The Tribe has had a
    great turnover in its core management positions (General Manager and
    Accountant) due in large part to unstable and inadequate funding plus
    the Tribe's remote location. This has kept the Tribe from progressing.
    The Tribe requests a $190,000 appropriation increase above the $160,000
    minimum appropriated in fiscal year 1998 to the BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocations, Tribal Government, Other Aid to Tribal Government Budget
    Base for a planner/grants writer, a business development and management
    assistant and office equipment. To include 100 percent contract support
    costs.
        Increase in BIA Law Enforcement.--The Tribe has only one police
    officer, jail facilities are hours away. The Tribe needs a second
    officer and a truant/probation officer to provide services to the
    community. The Tribe requests a $250,000 increase, to be added to the
    BIA Tribal Priority Allocation, Public Safety and Justice, Law
    Enforcement Tribal/Agency Budget Base, so that the Tribe can hire and
    equip. two officers, a radio system, a probation/truant officer, office
    space, detention facilities with necessary equipment to act as a short
    term holding facility. The Tribe requests the law enforcement funds be
    returned to the TPA from the special account within BIA.
        Increase BIA Tribal Courts.--The Tribe requests that $200,000 be
    appropriated for Tribal Court, added to BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocations, Public Safety and Justice, Tribal Courts Budget Base, for
    Tribal Court operations and staffing (\1/2\ time judge, court clerk,
    prosecutor, defender).
        Increase Economic Development Enterprise.--The Sauk-Suiattle Indian
    Tribe is focused on developing economic self-sufficiency. However, the
    current trend of cuts far outweighs the actual portion of federal
    monies utilized by the tribes, and heavily impacts Congressional
    recognition of the need to meet Treaty and trust responsibilities.
        The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe has initiated a planning process to
    develop economic enterprise that will provide long term financial
    stability, employment for Tribal members, reinforce the need for
    education for Tribal members, and allow the Tribe to assume true Self-
    Determination and financial independence. Since these efforts require
    dedicated time to expedite results, the Tribe requires stable
    ``economic incubation'' funding for a period of 3 years in order to:
        (1) hire a business manager/planner to focus on the effort,
        (2) develop a complete business plan,
        (3) initiate a viable financial enterprise(s), and
        (4) develop sufficient capital to ``stand alone''.
        (5) developing business codes
        The tribe has calculated a three (3) year cost of $375,000 for this
    project to reach a return on the investment, including the necessary
    ``seed'' capital to begin the actual enterprise and meet all
    anticipated ``incubation'' costs. The U.S. Government benefits as a
    result of a decreased financial need of the Tribe, as well as the
    benefits of employed Tribal members not requiring the current level of
    governmental assistance.
        Also, Tribal Economic Enterprises will employee those members of
    the larger Community outside the Reservation currently unemployed as a
    result of the economic downturn in forest product work. The local
    community was designated a depressed timber community.
        Cultural Resource Funding & Special Appropriation for Land
    Acquisition Study.--The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 235 members, 20 houses,
    one services building and no vacant suitable land for the creation of a
    Tribal economy. The Tribe currently has an unemployment rate of over 65
    percent and over 80 percent of employment age tribal members make less
    than $7,000 a year. With a land base the Tribe could provide
    employment, generate Tribal revenue, decrease dependence on federal
    funds and enable Tribal members to return to their ancestral home. The
    Tribe requests a special appropriation of $200,000 to the BIA for the
    Sauk-Suiattle Tribe to perform a land acquisition feasibility study on
    identified sites, including the possibility of a land trade between the
    U.S. Forest Service, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources
    to decrease land acquisition costs. There are also several thousand
    acres of unresolved Tribal allotments which should be factored into
    study. These lands (5,000 + acres) were allotted to Tribal members and
    then taken without compensation in 1897 when the Mt. Baker--Snoqualmie
    National Forest was created.
        Increase Higher Education Scholarships.--The Tribes current 638
    contract with BIA only provides funds for 20 percent of the Tribal
    members seeking higher education. The Tribe requests that BIA Portland
    Area Office scholarship funding be increased by $30,000 to provide
    educational opportunities to Sauk-Suiattle Tribal members to attain
    their higher education. Our base budget includes less than $4,000 in
    funds, even with more than half of the population of college age.
        Increase in BIA Indian Child Welfare.--Half the Tribe's population
    is 18 or younger and 75 percent of the children on the Reservation have
    received KEYBOARD A services. Because of the Reservation's small
    population base and remote location, which requires high travel time,
    the Tribe does not receive comparable operating funds such as other
    Tribes. Sauk-Suiattle requests that a $75,000 appropriation be added to
    the Tribe's base budget through the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations,
    Human Services, Indian Child Welfare Act account to (1) provide for
    added counseling services, and (2) management to work with children and
    dysfunctional families.
        Land into Trust.--There are two parcels of land that the Tribe
    wishes to be put in trust status. The first, the new 13 acres adjacent
    to the current reservation. Second, 50.8 acre Caskey Lake, lake and
    swamp approximately 3 miles from the reservation. The Tribe has No
    intention, nor is it feasible due to location to use these parcels for
    Gaming. It may be utilized for other enterprise to create jobs that
    will benefit the Tribe and the local non-Indian community. The Tribe
    submitted requests in July 1998 to have the Secretary, DOI transfer the
    lands from fee to trust status.
        Tribal Cemetery Plots.--Sauk-Suiattle Tribe requests title to the
    ``Suiattle Cemetery'' and the ``Tenas Creek Cemetery'' lands, plus
    additional 15 acres of surrounding lands for each cemetery, to clear up
    the question of ownership, multiple jurisdictions and joint
    responsibilities. The ownership, trust or protective authorities and
    general administrative responsibilities are not clear, whether it is
    the US Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Sauk-Suiattle
    Indian Tribe or US Navy. The properties are actually owned by the US
    Forest Service, the BIA has trust responsibility and the Tribe works
    jointly with these two entities to manage and upkeep the sites. The US
    Navy without notifying the appropriate authorities just assumed the
    area was available for their training maneuvers, which caused extensive
    damage to the graves of our people. These are sacred sites and need
    protection. Prior allotments of tribal members in area was 5,000+
    acres.
        Water Storage Tank.-- the current 360,000 gallon domestic drinking
    water Cement Tank leaks. The tank was lined, but still leaks. Acidity
    in the water is the cause of the leaking of the high rates of lead and
    copper into the drinking system. The tank is 15 years old, is 60 feet
    high and 20 feet across. The pipes also need replacing.
        We urge that Congress remember our small tribal governments, our
    management problems and needs, and support them in with sufficient
    appropriations. We urge funding for tribes, their programs and their
    developments be given the highest priority. Thank You.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of David Lopeman, Chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
    Squaxin Island Tribe, I thank you for this opportunity to provide
    testimony on the fiscal year 2000 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
    Indian Health Service (IHS). The following concerns and recommendations
    of the Squaxin Island Tribe are common, not only to us, but to Tribes
    both in our region and throughout the Nation.
                       summary of appropriation requests
    Tribal specific
        1. Support for $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management
    Regional
        1. Support for $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal shellfish harvest
    management, enforcement and enhancement to implement Tribal treaty
    rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations
        2. Support for $1.247 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
    Species initiative
        3. Support for $3.0 million BIA, Forest Development, Woodland
    Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' initiative and
    from this amount a designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock
    Restoration initiative
        4. Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
    Management initiative
        5. Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
    Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new state and
    private forest practices, rules and regulations pertaining to ESA
    obligations
        6. Support the development of a displaced fishers ``Jobs-in-the-
    Woods'' program and a gear and vessel subsidized payment account
    Self-governance and other national issues
        1. $12.1 million increase for Diabetes Programs
        2. $12.1 million increase for Substance Abuse/Alcoholism Programs
        3. $7.2 million increase for Health Promotion/Disease Prevention
    efforts
        4. $3.6 million increase for Emergency medical Services
        5. $2.3 million increase for Tribal Environmental Health Programs
        6. $15 million increase for Cancer screening and treatment,
    principally for breast and cervical cancer
        7. $19.5 million increase for Dental programs
        8. $7.1 million increase for Mental Health programs
        9. Replace the proposed $5 million cut in the Community Health
    Representatives program
        10. Support the Administration's request for a $170 million
    increase for the IHS budget
        11. Support the replacement of funding for the Indian Health
    Service's recruitment and retention program and the physician's pay
    program
        12. Address the funding and service disparities in Indian Health
    Programs by providing level of need funding for Indian Health Programs
        13. Support the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations request of $716
    million as well as the Small and Needy Tribes Appropriation minimum
        14. Increase Tribal Court funding to $58.4 million
        15. Support the full funding of Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
    the distribution methodology for CSC funds recommended by the National
    Congress of American Indians
        16. Remove the fiscal year 1999 appropriation moratorium on PL 93-
    638 contracting and compacting
                         narrative summary of requests
    Tribal specific
        Support $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management. The
    Squaxin Island Tribe was a plaintiff in the court case which reaffirmed
    the Treaty rights of the Tribes in Washington State to harvest 50
    percent of the shellfish product, and to act as co-managers of the
    shellfish resources. This involves management of both inter-tidal and
    sub-tidal species of shellfish.
        For the past two years, we have been expanding our management of
    this very important resource to the Squaxin Island Tribe. Currently we
    manage the resource for about 150 Tribal harvesters who harvest
    shellfish for subsistence and commerce as has been the case since the
    Treaty was signed in 1854. To date our expanded enhancement and
    management efforts have been directly funded by Tribal dollars.
        Once again, the appellate court has upheld the District Court's
    decision, and strengthened the tribal claims. Our experience has shown
    that in order to be an effective co-manager of this resource, we need
    to be able to participate in management, enhancement, and enforcement
    activities. As managers of this resource, we will need to continue to
    expand our management capacity. This will involve specialized training
    and equipment for our harvesters, our management staff, and our
    enforcement staff.
    Regional
        Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
    Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
    treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations.
    Additional funding to tribal programs are necessary to address these
    needs. Western Washington tribes request an additional $1,950,000 be
    added to tribal fisheries management contracts as permanent base
    funding. This would provide basic infrastructure for each tribe of
    $97,500. This would cover only the basic level of management and
    enforcement needs.
        Support for $1.0 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
    Species initiative. As Tribes that are potentially impacted by the
    proposed listing of pacific salmon under the terms of ESA, funds are
    needed for biological review, listing decisions, conferencing,
    consultation and recovery planning to prepare for the changes in
    harvest, hatchery and habitat practices in response to the ESA process.
        Support for $3.0 million BIA, Forest Development, Woodland
    Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' initiative and
    from this amount a designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock
    Restoration initiative. We support the BIA request of $3,000,000 for
    continued implementation of the President's Northwest Forest
    Development Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' Initiative and the designation
    of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of Washington Wild Stock Restoration
    Initiative (WSRI). WSRI is essential to developing a habitat inventory
    base from which restorations projects can begin. This work will extend
    the effectiveness of the limited funds for restoration by providing an
    effective tool for prioritization and design of projects.
        Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
    Management initiative. This amount is needed to support the
    coordination and cooperative monitoring effort by the Tribal co-
    managers for the protection and restoration of salmon populations,
    consistent with ESA, the Clean Water Act, Natural Resource Conservation
    Service's obligation for salmon recovery, and the Forest Service
    obligations under the Northwest Forest Plan.
        Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
    Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new state and
    private forest practices rules and regulations pertaining to ESA
    obligations. This amount is needed to allow tribes to effectively
    participate in monitoring and adaptive management processes that are
    integral to the TFW process.
        Support the development of a displaced fishers ``Jobs-in-the-
    Woods'' program and a gear and vessel subsidized payment account. Such
    a program would provide meaningful work and a liveable wage for tribal
    members who are adversely impacted due to low fish populations. Such a
    program coupled with a program which provides support to fishers for
    gear and vessel payments during low fish harvests will prevent
    disastrous foreclosures and economic conditions for tribal fishers and
    related businesses.
    Self-governance and other national issues
        We support providing the requested increases for the Indian Health
    Service programs as this will begin to close the vast disparity between
    Indian health care and promotion programs and those of the rest of the
    American population. As a group, Indian people have the lowest life
    expectancy of any other group in this country. The trust relationship
    and the government-to-government relationship which exists between the
    Federal Government and Tribal Governments dictates that Native
    Americans and Alaska Natives be provided health care programs which are
    commensurate with the highest quality health care available in this
    country.
        We support providing the requested increases for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs programs as this will provide tribes with the funds to
    improve and expand their governmental and administrative
    infrastructures so as to be fully responsive to the unique and diverse
    cultural, political, economic, social and health and welfare needs of
    their constituents.
        We support the provision of full funding of Contract Support Costs
    (CSC) for the BIA and the IHS. CSC is an important part of the federal
    resources transferred to Tribes under Self-Determination and Self-
    Governance which support vital managerial and administration functions
    essential to any government or business. Further, we support the
    distribution methodology recommended by the National Congress of
    American Indians as this appears to be the most equitable way to manage
    the gross under funding of CSC.
        We support the lifting of the moratorium on contracting and
    compacting as this is a serious affront to tribal sovereignty and a
    serious breach of the government-to-government relationship which
    exists between the federal government and tribal governments as
    established through treaties, legislation, case law, and executive
    orders.
        We support the requests and recommendations of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board, the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission, and the Northwest Intertribal Court System. These consortia
    assist us in an efficient and cost effective manner, thus insuring the
    tribes and the federal government that scarce funds are wisely managed.
    Please consider their requests as you consider our individual
    submissions.
        In closing, the Squaxin Island would like to emphasize the long
    list of unmet needs that are evident throughout Indian country We are
    doing everything we can to work with the limited resources available to
    us. The health care of Indian people cannot remain at such a deplorable
    level. We are entering the next millennium, yet Indian people remain as
    the highest risk population in the Nation.
        On February 20, 1998, the U.S. President announced a ``New Racial
    and Ethnic Health Disparities Initiative''. Unfortunately, the
    Administration's initiative is inconsistent with the priorities
    presented by Indian country under the Secretary's consultation policy.
    Funding was removed from our hospitals and clinics line items to
    provide funding for Departmental initiatives. Thus, we look to this
    Committee to correct the gross negligence of our consultative input on
    the part of the Administration.
        In addition, there are three legislative measures which will
    warrant your support during this session of Congress. Each of these
    bills, if passed, will improve the quality and delivery of health
    services to Indian People. Should these items come before you, possibly
    in your capacity on another Committee of Congress, please support these
    measures. And, should you have questions, we would welcome the
    opportunity to address your inquiries. They are:
      --Support H.R. 1167, a bill to make Self-Governance a permanent
            tribal option in the IHS
      --Support H.R. 403, a bill to elevate the IHS Director to the level
            of Assistant Secretary, with commensurate pay increase, and
            keeping the Office of Tribal Self-Governance as a part of, and
            co-located within that elevated office
      --Support the re-authorization of Public Law 94-437, The Indian
            Health Care Improvement Act, with provisions to address the
            funding needs and authorities of contracting and compacting
            Tribes
        The Committee's support for our requests is much appreciated and on
    behalf of the Squaxin Island people, I thank you for your continued
    efforts.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Tim Ballew, Chairman, Lummi Nation
        The Lummi Nation is located in the Pacific Northwest of Washington
    State, serving a population of over 4,000 members. The Lummi Nation is
    a fishing community. We have depended on the resources from the oceans
    and the rivers for generations. We are one of the first Tribes to enter
    into Self-Governance. We are proud to say that we are in the tenth year
    of implementation. The following document presents the Lummi Nation's
    funding priorities, as well as regional and national concerns and
    recommendations for your consideration. Further, the Lummi Nation
    strongly opposes any bill, language or legislative rider which
    undermines Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
    governmental responsibilities based on the long standing government to
    government relationship.
                     tribal-specific appropriation requests
        +$1,300,000 to Support Water Negotiations--$300,000 for attorney
    fees, $400,000 for on reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for
    Nooksack River Basin technical studies (Tribal Government Services and
    Water Resources Accounts)
        +$750,000 for Water and Sewer Infrastructure Planning--Provide the
    IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program with funds to support
    the planning for upgrading our water and sewer system (IHS Division of
    Facilities & Environmental Engineering (DFEE)
        +$700,000 Increase to Lummi Nation Hatchery--Bureau's Hatchery
    Operation Program Maintenance and Repair Program
    $1,300,000.--Support water negotiations summary
        The Nation signed an Agreement in Principle with the Federal
    Government and the State of Washington on January 27, 1998. This
    agreement is a stepping stone toward a final settlement of the on-
    reservation water rights conflicts, which were and still are,
    attributable to the non-Indians disregard for treaty-reserved water and
    fishing rights in the Nooksack River Watershed. Many difficult issues
    remain to be resolved which will require significant technical studies
    and legal consultation before a final agreement can be signed. To
    complete this work the Lummi Nation is requesting $1.3 million during
    fiscal year 2000: $300,000 to defray legal consultation costs, $400,000
    for on-reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for technical
    studies in the Nooksack River Basin. Recommendation: Support the
    increase in the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation, Attorney fees and
    technical studies.
    $750,000.--Support water and sewer infrastructure planning summary
        The Lummi Water and Sewer System services Indian and non-Indian
    residents with a Board of Indian and non-Indian residents elected by
    both the Tribal and non-Tribal community. The System was built in 1983
    and is 16 years old. Currently, the facility is at over 85 percent
    capacity. The Lummi Nation is not in the position to undertake this
    level of planning without assistance from the Indian Health Service.
    Both short and long term planning needs to begin immediately. The
    Nation requests that funds be identified in the IHS/DFEE Sanitation
    Facilities Construction Program to support the planning of a water
    delivery and sewage treatment system infrastructure for the existing
    and projected population of the Lummi Indian Reservation .
    Recommendation: Direct IHS/OEHE to fund Lummi Nation Need for Water and
    Sewer System Planning Request.
    $700,000.--Increase to lummi nation hatchery
        The Lummi Nation hatchery is a fully operational hatchery that is
    30 years old this year. The hatchery provides employment and income
    opportunities for many families. The hatchery supplies oyster and clam
    seeds to most of the Northwest Washington Tribes and private growers.
    With the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the shellfish ruling,
    there will be an increased need both by treaty and non-treaty growers
    for oyster seed and clam seed enhancement projects. These dollars will
    benefit both the Tribal governments and Washington State.
    Recommendation: Request that $350,000 be added to the BIA Hatchery
    Operational Program for the Lummi Nation.
                               regional requests
        The Lummi Nation is an active member of the NWIFC and we support
    the following requests. We further emphasize the Committees
    understanding of the impact of the Endangered Species Act to a tribal
    fishing community. Adequate base funding must be provided for tribal
    participation in ESA activities and the DOI Secretarial Order must be
    fully implemented. Further, emphasis and consideration efforts are
    needed to assist the families whose livelihoods have been devastatingly
    affected. Today, Tribal members are losing their boats which was their
    only source of income.
      --Support for the $3.0 million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest
            Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs
            in the Woods'' Initiative.--The WSRI is essential to developing
            a habitat inventory base from which restoration efforts can
            begin. The remaining $2.6 million from this initiative will
            allow tribes throughout the Pacific Northwest to continue to
            conduct watershed analysis and watershed restoration in
            watersheds within their Usual and Accustomed Areas.
      --Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
            Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new
            state and private forest practices rules and regulations
            pertaining to ESA obligations.--This is required for tribes to
            actively participate in state forest practice rules and
            regulations that have an effect on listed salmon populations.
            Tribes, as a result of their co-management status, are deeply
            involved in this management forum. Tribes have a high level of
            skills and technical capabilities that would greatly facilitate
            a successful outcome. Tribes will need additional funding to
            participate in monitoring and adaptive management processes
            that are a cornerstone to the TFW process.
      --Support for the development of displaced fishers ``Jobs in the
            Woods'' program and a gear/vessel subsidized payment account.--
            This program is needed to assist displaced tribal fishers. This
            could provide meaningful jobs and income to tribal members, as
            they are restricted from harvest opportunities due to low fish
            abundance. A program that provides support to tribal fishers
            for gear and vessel payments in absence of revenues from
            harvest is essential in order to preclude catastrophic bank
            foreclosures.
      --Support for the $1.95 million Western Washington tribal shellfish
            management, enhancement, and enforcement funding request to
            implement tribal treaty rights through the establishment of
            base shellfish operations.--The Tribes request an additional
            $1,950,000 for tribal fishery management contracts to be added
            as part of permanent base. As tribal shellfish programs develop
            and expand, other issues affecting the shellfish resource have
            been identified. For instance, very little data and technical
            information exists for many of the fisheries now being jointly
            managed by state and tribal managers. This lack of information
            can impact the fisheries and resources as a whole.
        Although tribes are addressing the basic management
    responsibilities in their shellfish fisheries, it is clear that more
    needs to be done to adequately address resource concerns for the
    benefit of all fishers, Indian and non-Indian alike.
      --Contract Support Costs.--the IHS fiscal year 2000 shortfall in
            contract support costs totals $109.8 million. Congress should
            appropriate adequate contract support cost funds to eliminate
            this shortfall.
      --Contract Health Services.--Contract Care has lost $245 million in
            unfunded inflationary cost increases and increased costs due to
            population growth since fiscal year 1992. We support the
            request of the NWIHB to address and correct this diparity in
            Indian Country compared to contracted health service providers
            for non-Indians.
      --Restore CHR funding and grant inflation and pay cost increases. The
            Indian Health Service should not cut $5 million from this
            widely supported program. $5 million plus $1.7 million for a
            total of $6.7 million should be restored to this line item to
            maintain current services.
        We continue to support the requests and recommendations of the
    Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian
    Health Board and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
                               national requests
    IHS
      --Support the Administration's request for a $170 million increase
            for the IHS budget
      --Address the funding and service disparities in Indian Health
            Programs by providing level of need funding for Indian Health
            Programs
      --Support the Full funding of Contract Support Costs
      --$12.1 million increase for Diabetes Programs
      --$12.1 million increase for Substance Abuse/Alcoholism Programs
      --$7.2 million increase for Health Promotion/Disease Prevention
            efforts
      --$3.6 million increase for Emergency Medical Services
      --$2.3 million increase for Tribal Environmental Health Programs
      --$15 million increase for cancer screening and treatment,
            principally for breast and cervical cancer
      --$19.5 million increase for Dental Programs
      --$7.1 million increase for Mental Health Programs
      --Support the replacement of funding for the Indian Health Service's
            Recruitment and Retention Program and the Physician's Pay
            Program
      --Support The National Congress of American Indians recommendation
            regarding the distribution methodology for Contract Support
            Cost funds
    BIA
      --Support the request for $108.4 million for education construction
      --Support the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations request of $716 million
            as well as the Small and Needy Tribes Appropriation minimum
      --Remove the fiscal year 1999 moratorium on PL 93-638 contracting and
            compacting
        We continue to support the requests and recommendations of the
    National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Health
    Board, and other National Indian requests before this Subcommittee in
    the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations.
        In addition, there are three legislative measures which will
    warrant your support during this session of Congress. Each of these
    bills, if passed, will improve the quality and delivery of health
    services to Indian People. Should these items come before you, possibly
    in your capacity on another Committee in Congress, please support these
    measures. And, should you have questions, we would welcome the
    opportunity to address your inquiries. They are:
      --Support H.R. 1167, a bill to make Self-Governance a permanent
            tribal option in the IHS
      --Support H.R. 403, a bill to elevate the IHS Director to the level
            of Assistant Secretary, with commensurate pay increase, and
            keeping the Office of Tribal Self-Governance as a part of, and
            co-located within that elevated office
      --Support the re-authorization of Public Law 94-437, The Indian
            Health Care Improvement Act, with provisions to address the
            funding needs and authorities of contracting and compacting
            Tribes
        I appreciate your consideration of the fiscal year 2000 requests
    and recommendation of appropriations for the BIA/IHS, on behalf of the
    Lummi Nation. Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian
                              Fisheries Commission
        On behalf of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission member
    tribes, I want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present
    testimony on our fiscal year 2000 fisheries and habitat management
    needs that fall within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
               summary of fiscal year 2000 appropriations request
        In general, the NWIFC supports the Administrations appropriation
    request that is presently before the Subcommittee. Specifically, the
    NWIFC requests funding and direction which will achieve the following
    for fiscal year 2000:
      --Provision of Contract Support Funding at 100 percent levels
            necessary for existing and emerging programs;
      --Support for the $1.247 million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Resources
            Management, Endangered Species Initiative line item;
      --Support for the $3.0 million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest
            Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs
            in the Woods'' Initiative line item and from this amount a
            designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration
            Initiative;
      --Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
            Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new
            state and private forest practices rules and regulations
            pertaining to ESA obligations;
      --Support the development of a displaced fishers ``Jobs-in-the-
            Woods'' program and a gear/vessel subsidized payment account;
            and,
      --Support for the $1.95 million western Washington tribal shellfish
            management, enhancement, and enforcement funding request to
            implement tribal treaty rights through the establishment of
            base shellfish operations
                                  introduction
        Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. v. Washington case was decided by
    the federal court system. This decision, respecting the treaty rights
    of our member tribes, propelled major changes in fisheries management
    in the Pacific Northwest. These changes have not only fundamentally
    altered the legal, political, social and economic institutions of the
    State of Washington, but have also fostered a nationwide quest for
    tribal self-determination and self-governance led in part by the
    Northwest tribal leadership. These parameters affect both the way
    tribes perform fisheries management, as well as how we approach the
    federal system during the budget/appropriations and legislative
    processes.
                           tribal and nwifc programs
        We are at a turning point in natural resource management in the
    Pacific Northwest.
        We have made great strides in institutionalizing tribal management
    consistent with tribal values, treaty rights and federal court
    decisions. We have developed great professional capabilities and policy
    respect as we proceed through the various processes. We are efficient
    and effective, but we are still far short of where we would like to be
    in our capabilities. And, while we have efficiently organized our tasks
    and assigned responsibilities between our tribal community to extend
    our collective efforts, the management obligations are many. New and
    highly difficult complexities abound, many precipitated by the demands
    of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). We
    are challenged now with three separate ESA listings of threatened
    salmon populations and over 666 water bodies listed under Section 303
    (d) of the CWA. To meet this challenge, we will need all of our
    existing funding and additional new resources.
        Over the past decade, tribes have been able to secure new monies
    for additional responsibilities. However, over the same time, tribes
    have seen other monies they once received for other duties diminish,
    either through inflation or through the elimination of program and
    support funding. And in this process, Indian natural resource
    management capacity has been unfairly affected. With a small base, any
    cuts to tribal resource programs have profound impacts to tribal
    management. Therefore, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to guard
    against any diminishment of the tribal program funding base, and do all
    it can to strengthen and enhance the Bureau's Trust, Tribal Priority
    Allocation and Self-Governance Program funding. We also ask that the
    Subcommittee will ensure that the Western Washington-Boldt
    Implementation and the Pacific Salmon Treaty base budgets will be fully
    funded for this coming year.
            contract support funding is essential to tribal programs
        We continue to have concerns that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
    failed to fully request Contract Support Funds for tribal programs. We
    are also concerned that Congress has not fully appropriated their
    necessary funds. An artificial cap upon the funding pool for indirect
    cost reimbursements places a huge burden on tribal fisheries programs.
    Such a failure has led tribal programs to reduce direct funding for
    indirect, mandated purposes. The net effect has been a loss of program
    purchasing power and program staff capability. For the NWIFC in fiscal
    year 1999, we have planned for a $250,000 contract support shortfall.
    What this means is that we are not spending that amount for direct
    services from our Fisheries Management or Pacific Salmon Treaty
    Contracts, but rather are allocating that to cover necessary
    administrative costs not provided due to the indirect shortfalls. We
    have been, and will be forced to continue to reduce our programs to
    cover these costs as mandated by law. Such a burden cannot be borne by
    tribal programs again this year or into the future without onerous
    results. In addition, the actual level of contract support is not
    determined until late in the fiscal year making cash flow management
    extremely difficult.
    wildstock restoration initiative/watershed restoration/northwest forest
                   plan/endangered species act implementation
        In late February, a number of species of Pacific Salmon were
    ``listed'' by the National Marine Fisheries Service as ``threatened''
    under the terms of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This ESA listing
    process will likely trigger a cascading chain of events, culminating in
    significant changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices for the
    region and its inhabitants.
        Tribes will be affected by this federal process. As fisherman, the
    listing raises serious questions about the status of the stock and pose
    a threat to the individuals opportunity to continue to harvest this
    salmon, a treaty-secured resource. As governments, the ESA process
    places inordinate demands upon the tribes as co-managers of the
    resource. Biological Reviews, Listing Decisions, Conferencing,
    Assessments, Opinions, Consultation, and Recovery Planning are just a
    few of the series of loops tribes will now be forced to participate in
    just to ensure their treaty protected fisheries. The tribes harvest
    opportunity and management certainty will be placed in severe jeopardy
    by these actions without additional funds to manage through the risks
    imposed by this federal mandate.
        It is partly for these reasons that the tribes have worked very
    hard over the years to bring about positive and effective change in
    resource management. Unfortunately, the process has overtaken tribal
    efforts, and new obligations are upon us. That is why we are asking for
    additional funding beyond our base program.
        We would like to support the new initiative developed by the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs which would enhance the Bureau and tribes' abilities
    to respond to the ESA process. This amount is for $1.247 million, and
    is an effort to meet the ESA process obligations by enhancing tribal
    and bureau capacity building.
        We are also requesting that the Subcommittee continue to provide
    $400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative from the $3.0
    million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Development, Woodland
    Management and the Northwest Forest Plan ``Jobs in the Woods''
    Initiative line item. The WSRI is essential to developing a habitat
    inventory base from which restoration efforts can begin. The remaining
    $2.6 million from this initiative will allow tribes throughout the
    Pacific Northwest to continue to conduct watershed analysis and
    watershed restoration in watersheds within their Usual and Accustomed
    Areas. This approach is identical to last year's request, which the
    Subcommittee supported.
                    timber-fish-wildlife agreement expansion
        Finally, we are supporting additional funding to tribes for
    expansion of the Timber-Fish-Wildlife program that cooperatively and
    collaboratively allows tribes to actively participate in state forest
    practice rules and regulations that have an affect on listed salmon
    populations. Tribes, as a result of their co-management status, are
    deeply involved in this management forum. Tribes bring to the table a
    very high level of skills and technical capabilities that if
    appropriately funded, would greatly facilitate a successful outcome.
    Tribes will require additional funding to participate in monitoring and
    adaptive management processes that are a cornerstone to the TFW
    process. That is why we are seeking an additional $4.0 million for
    expansion of this program to implement new forest practice rules and
    programs within the State of Washington. On a related note, tribes are
    also watching closely the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee on
    Appropriations treatment of the Department of Commerce Coastal Salmon
    Restoration Initiative of $100 million. Without these monies as well,
    the tribes ability to work through the TFW process will be severely
    constrained.
        There is also a strong need for a program to assist displaced
    tribal fishers. A ``Jobs-in-the-Woods'' like program that employs
    tribal fishers will provide meaningful jobs and income to tribal
    members as they are restricted from harvest opportunities due to low
    fish abundance. A program that provides support to tribal fishers for
    gear and vessel payments in the absence of revenues from harvest is
    essential in order to preclude catastrophic bank foreclosures. Such a
    program should be a combination of grant and/or loan packages that
    reflects the economic status of tribal fishers.
                        shellfish management initiative
        For centuries, members of Puget Sound and Coastal Treaty Tribes
    have harvested shellfish for their commercial, ceremonial and
    subsistence needs. Hard shell clams and oysters were collected from
    shoreline areas. Other shellfish species, such as crab and shrimp, were
    also gathered for subsistence and commercial uses. Shellfish harvesting
    was as important to tribal traditional life and commerce, as was
    fishing for salmon and steelhead.
        Tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850's,
    that included guaranteed tribal rights to gather shellfish. However,
    over the course of the past century and a half, conflicts have arisen,
    and the tribal right to harvest these resources was diminished. As a
    result, tribes were forced to seek a reaffirmation of their rights
    through the federal courts system. Now after five years in the courts,
    the tribal rights to harvest have been clarified, when the Supreme
    Court just this month denied cert. and let stand the decision of the
    9th Circuit Court. Tribes have steadily moved forward during this time
    in implementing their treaty rights to harvest their share of the
    resource. Several dozen regional shellfish management plans have been
    successfully negotiated with tribal and state agencies, and tribes have
    redirected efforts to conduct the minimum management needed for their
    fisheries. Agreements and processes to access private tidelands have
    also been proceeding peacefully. The chaos predicted by some non-Indian
    groups concerning tribal access to private tidelands has not
    materialized. Tribes have fully cooperated with landowners when
    attempting to access privately owned tidelands under the rules set by
    the Court.
        As tribal shellfish programs develop and expand, other issues
    affecting the shellfish resource have been identified. For instance,
    very little data and technical information exists for many of the
    fisheries which are now being jointly managed by state and tribal
    managers. This is particularly true for many free swimming and deep-
    water species. This lack of information can not only impact fisheries
    and the resource as a whole, but makes it difficult to assess the
    treaty/non-treaty sharing arrangements. Additionally, intertidal
    assessment methodologies differ between state and tribal programs, and
    can lead to conflicts in management planning.
        During the course of the court case, tribal and state attorneys
    were able to negotiate a consent decree regarding shellfish sanitation.
    This agreement establishes the interaction of the state department of
    health and the tribes in developing and implementing shellfish
    sanitation programs designed to protect the public health. The
    implementation of the decree has revealed to both the state and the
    tribes that the presence of biotoxins in shellfish is dangerously
    unacceptable, and threatens the viability of both the state and tribal
    fisheries. Additional research and monitoring of this biotoxin is
    necessary to prevent illness and death that may result from consuming
    toxic shellfish.
        The significant value of deep-water shellfish fisheries has
    increased illegal harvesting. Enforcement of these fisheries, at both
    the state and tribal levels, are not adequate to fully enforce these
    fisheries. Tribes and state enforcement agencies are addressing
    problems by coordinating patrols, but additional monitoring of harvest
    is needed to effectively manage these fisheries.
        Though tribes are addressing the basic management responsibilities
    in their shellfish fisheries, it is clear that more needs to be done to
    adequately address resource concerns for the benefit of all fisheries,
    Indian and non-Indian alike.
        Additional funding to tribal programs is needed to address the
    aforementioned issues. Western Washington tribes request the
    Subcommittee to add an additional $1,950,000 to tribal fishery
    management contracts as part of the permanent base. This would provide
    approximately $97,500 per tribe, and allow a very modest amount for
    coordination activities. This request is supported by a wide range of
    individuals, organizations, and governments and is necessary to
    effectively manage the shellfish resource.
                                   conclusion
        We appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support for the tribes
    and the NWIFC as we implement our co-management responsibilities. It
    takes funding resources to make our management system work, but the
    returns to our efforts are many. Tribal communities depend on fisheries
    for their cultural, social and economic livelihood. Because of our
    tribal management capabilities, in large part supported by this
    Subcommittee, we do feel that we are making some progress in protecting
    our resources. However, the challenges are great, and we must continue
    our effort with renewed vigor. We thank you for your attention to our
    needs. We leave you with supporting documentation for our requests. We
    are available to meet with you and your staff at your leisure.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman and Executive
                      Director, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I thank
    you for the opportunity to express our concerns and requests regarding
    the fiscal year 2000 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service
    budgets. The following document presents the Jamestown S'Klallam
    Tribe's funding priorities, as well as other regional and national
    concerns and recommendations for your consideration.
                             overall recommendation
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe strongly recommends that the
    Subcommittee not consider any provisions or legislative riders which
    undermine Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
    governmental capacity based on long-standing Federal/Tribal relations
    and Federal Indian law and policy. Further, the Tribe strongly opposes
    any moratorium on self-determination contracting and self-governance
    compacting. Any such moratorium is a direct assault of tribal
    sovereignty by eliminating the rights of tribal governments to contract
    or compact for programs and services for their respective communities.
                    tribal-specific appropriation priorities
        1. $45,000 increase in IHS Services appropriations plus full
    funding of related contract support costs for the Jamestown S'Klallam
    Tribe IHS Self-Governance base budget;
        2. $260,000 one-time funding for development of a community on-site
    sewage disposal system;
        3. $600,000 one-time funding for the purchase of land adjacent to
    our existing reservation and;
        4. $30,000 increase in BIA Tribal base funding for unfunded
    Operations & Maintenance programs.
                     regional requests and recommendations
        1. Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated
    Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
    Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
               self-governance and other national considerations
        1. Restore and expand $1,000,000 increase to the DOI Office of
    Self-Governance for planning and negotiation grants;
        2. Provide increase for BIA and IHS to fully fund Contract Support
    Cost (CSC) to address documented Tribal needs;
        3. Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
        4. Provide $146,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services; and,
        5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians.
                    tribal-specific appropriation priorities
    Increase In IHS services for Jamestown S'Klallam self-governance base--
            +$45,000
        We are now in our sixth year of implementation of Self-Governance
    with the Indian Health Service (IHS). During that time, we have
    negotiated for a majority of the IHS programs and services and have re-
    designed our Tribal health services into a comprehensive Tribal managed
    care program. As a small Tribe managing a new and innovative program,
    it is critical that we maintain stable base funding levels to ensure
    successful implementation of our managed care program and to provide
    critical health care services to our members.
        When the IHS Contract Health Services (CHS) budget was first
    compacted under Self-Governance in fiscal year 1996, the Jamestown
    S'Klallam Tribe was able to stretch the funding into a guaranteed
    benefit package for Tribal members. This was accomplished through
    aggressively coordinating existing state, federal and private health
    coverage. This Managed Care Program, which has achieved great success
    in improving access at a lower cost, was created in a post-health
    reform environment which, unfortunately, no longer exists. Since state
    and national health reform plans evaporated in 1997, the cost of
    purchasing and providing health care services has again begun to
    escalate more rapidly (after a temporary slowing of medical inflation).
    Tribal programs will not be able to sustain CHS programs in this
    environment unless IHS funding keeps pace with medical inflation.
        A 4-year analysis of our Tribal CHS funds vs. medical costs reveals
    a growing and worrisome discrepancy between the cost of services and
    CHS budget allocation. Program costs increased at an annual average of
    27.0 percent over the three fiscal years, while CHS increased at an
    annual average of only 1.3 percent.
        Our Tribal program simply cannot afford to continue to absorb these
    costs. The Tribe requests the Subcommittee to direct IHS to restore
    mandatories in order to address the rising cost of providing health
    care services and to increase our Self-Governance base budget by
    $45,000 to provide for adequate medical and general inflationary (as
    well as related contract support costs) needed to maintain our current
    Tribal health program.
    Development of a community on-site sewage disposal system--+$260,000
        As documented by IHS, the Tribe's existing wastewater facilities
    are severely impaired. Our location adjacent to Sequim Bay, our limited
    land base and the limited capacity of that land, have all combined to
    create a situation where our systems are failing where they are and we
    have to move them to a more suitable site. When one of our septic drain
    fields failed, we were required to shut down our Tribal Community
    Center facility it served. Yet, when we applied for money to fix it, we
    were told that because it was not being used, it was not a public
    health threat and therefore did not qualify for emergency funding.
    These facilities serve our Children, our Elders and even the non-Tribal
    community. To apply for funding from IHS, we would be put on a national
    waiting list; the earliest possible money-in-hand to fix the septic
    system would be in the year 2000. To qualify for Rural Utilities
    funding through USDA, we would have to serve non-Indian residences off
    reservation land. We do not qualify for other funding sources because
    our small reservation does not have residences. We are required to have
    a functioning sewage disposal system to serve our Tribal facilities,
    but do not have access to the $260,000 necessary to ensure that
    requirement.
        Last year, before our septic system failed, we were awarded
    $277,733 from HUD to construct a community well to serve our Tribal
    facilities. Even so, this was $57,000 less than we needed-HUD simply
    ran out of funds. We cannot count on additional funding from HUD to fix
    our septic system, and we cannot continue to operate with a
    substandard, poorly functioning system. Therefore, we request the
    Subcommittee to fund $260,000 so that we can relocate our wastewater
    disposal system away from the sensitive resources of Sequim Bay and
    provide our facilities with a consolidated, fully functioning sewage
    system.
    Establishment of tribal land base--+$600,000
        For the past 8 years, the Tribe has requested the Subcommittee's
    assistance in securing additional land to add to our existing
    reservation. This request remains unfunded and we again appeal to the
    Subcommittee for your consideration of funding for this land
    acquisition. In the 1870's, Tribal members rejected a relocation policy
    (urged on by white settlers) to move them from their historical lands
    to another Tribe's reservation. In 1981, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
    achieved federal recognition. Since that time, we have been attempting
    to undo the effects of this injustice, which had devastating social,
    economic, and cultural impacts for on the Tribe. We strongly believe
    the United States government has an obligation to assist the Tribe in
    correcting these negative impacts. One way this situation can be
    addressed is for the Congress to assist us to increase on our meager
    reservation land base; a base that would have been substantially larger
    had it not been for the 100-year wait for our recognition.
        A contiguous ten (10) acre site still remains available for
    purchase at approximately $600,000. This land acquisition would allow
    us to expand our facilities to meet the steadily increasing demand for
    services by our Tribal members. Our Tribe is now at a critical juncture
    in this rapidly evolving situation. We need Congressional assistance to
    purchase the adjacent property which is essential for logical and
    efficient growth management of the Tribal operations. If the Tribe does
    not acquire the tract and a third party purchases and develops the
    land, we will obviously be blocked from any further practical expansion
    of our reservation base due to the geographic conditions of this area.
    In addition, the likelihood of a price escalation for this acreage
    exists.
    Increase in BIA tribal base funding for operations & maintenance--
            +$30,000
        Federal programs with jurisdiction over water and wastewater
    facilities and/or funding (EPA, IHS, HUD) require that a formal
    operations and maintenance program be adopted and implemented. These
    facilities require a certified operator employed by the tribe, ongoing
    monitoring and maintenance, and equipment reserves at an estimated
    annual cost of $30,000. O & M programs are not funded by the agencies
    requiring them, nor are they eligible for funding under any program;
    thus, they are an unfunded mandate. If we are to meet the requirements
    for successful operation of our facilities, we must request an
    additional $30,000 annually.
                     regional requests and recommendations
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
    collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
    recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission.
    Self-Governance And Other National Considerations
      --Restore and Expand $1,000,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-
            Governance for planning and negotiation grants.--Funding for
            Self-Governance negotiation and planning grants was deleted
            from the DOI Self-Governance office last year. However, Tribal
            participation in the Self-Governance initiative continues to
            increase. In fiscal year 1999, a total of $209 million in
            funding has been obligated and transferred from the BIA to 209
            Tribal governments under Self-Governance. The proposed
            restoration of funding includes award of ten (10) $50,000
            planning grants and ten ($50,000) negotiation grants.
      --Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funds to address
            documented need.--CSC funds are required for Tribes to
            successfully manage their own programs. While the
            Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes a
            modest increase for CSC, it is woefully inadequate to make any
            meaningful inroad into a shortfall that continues to penalize
            Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the
            self-determination policy. Additional CSC appropriations are
            needed to implement the self-determination and self-governance
            policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
            fully fund CSC for Tribes similar to how other contractors are
            funded within the federal government.
      --Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
            (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments.--Although
            the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000
            includes a $17.0 million increase over fiscal year 1999, the
            request contains no general increase for TPA. This activity
            includes the majority of the funds used to support on-going
            services at the local Tribal level including such programs as
            housing, education, natural resources management and Tribal
            government services. At a minimum, the requested amount will
            provide for a modest 3 percent inflation adjustment for
            existing Tribal programs and services.
      --Provide $146,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
            growth increase needed to maintain existing health care
            services.--These costs are unavoidable and include medical and
            general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently constructed
            facilities. IHS and Tribal programs have been forced to absorb
            these costs over the past 8 years. In an analysis conducted by
            the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the
            compounding effect of multi-year funding shortfalls from (FY
            1993-FY 1999) have resulted in $1.2 billion in real resources
            lost! If unfunded, these cost increases will result in further
            health service reductions in our Tribal communities.
        In conclusion, we strongly recommend increased funding levels
    within the BIA and IHS budgets for critically-needed existing programs.
    It is truly unconscionable and outrageous for Tribal governments who
    have struggled to secure decent housing, health care, and other
    programs for its people to suffer further reductions in funding. This
    funding is an obligation stemming from solemn commitments of the U.S.
    to Indian people to provide basic health, safety, education and
    economic security. We appreciate this Subcommittee's continued support
    and urge that Tribal government operations be afforded the highest
    priority in your appropriation decisions.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Kerry L. Sublette, Sarkeys Professor of
     Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa, Director, Integrated
                   Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC)
        It is proposed that $750,000 be appropriated from the Bureau of
    Land Management (Energy and Minerals), or other account that the
    Committee may deem appropriate, to fund a program to train Native
    American tribal authorities (1) to remediate environmental damage
    resulting from past spills of crude oil and produced water brine and
    (2) to train other tribal personnel in the same skills.
     ``train the trainer''--expanding environmental know-how among native
                                   americans
        Historically much of the oil and gas produced in Oklahoma has come
    from Indian land. In the culture surrounding the early days of oil and
    gas production there were few environmental regulations or concerns.
    This past lack of proper environmental practice resulted in damage that
    is still visible and problematic today. The most persistent problem is
    the contamination of soil and groundwater from past spills and
    discharge of produced water brine. Historic brine spills are seen today
    as scars on the land, devoid of vegetation, and highly eroded. Because
    of the age of these spills most of the companies responsible are no
    longer in business. Historic brine scars not only represent a loss of
    use of land but also a continuing source of pollution of valuable
    surface waters and groundwater. These brine-impacted sites contain salt
    and runoff and drainage from these sites jeopardizes public and private
    sources of drinking water. The sole solution to this continuous source
    of salt pollution is remediation. Many Oklahoma tribes occupy lands
    scarred by past brine spills. The salt in these scars threatens tribal
    recreational and drinking water sources.
        Today when oil or brine is spilled on Indian land, many times no
    one is held responsible for the cleanup. When a responsible party can
    be identified there is frequently bureaucratic confusion about the
    proper course of action. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the state
    regulatory agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
    Environmental Protection Agency all have regulatory and enforcement
    responsibilities, but it is unclear where one agency's responsibility
    ends and the other begins. The result is contaminated tribal land with
    no clear path to remediation and restoration.
        In response to these problems tribal organizations, such as the
    Inter-Tribal Environmental Council (ITEC) in Oklahoma, have been formed
    to inform and assist member tribes in dealing with environmental damage
    produced by past and current spills of produced fluids (oil and brine)
    on tribal lands. These organizations are terribly underfunded and in
    critical need of training in remediation, well plugging, and well
    inspections.
        Through its technology transfer program for the domestic petroleum
    industry, the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC) can
    provide some of this training. However, what tribal organizations
    really need is the self-sufficiency that will come from having their
    own environmental specialists and trainers. IPEC proposes to provide
    these organizations with an in-depth training program in environmental
    know-how related to these oil and gas related problems resulting in the
    education of Native American environmental specialists. Further IPEC
    proposes to give these specialists the skills and resources to allow
    them to train others in methods of remediation of oil and brine spills
    and pollution prevention.
        The remediation of crude oil spills and brine scars does not
    require expensive instrumentation or highly specialized equipment. The
    major equipment required is simply earth-moving equipment. Most tribes
    have equipment of this type currently used for road work and other
    municipal projects. Therefore, remediation of oil and brine spills is
    not economically beyond the reach of the tribes. By ``training the
    trainer'' IPEC extends its reach beyond the classroom into the tribes
    building self-sufficiency within the tribes to solve environmental
    problems on tribal lands and protect precious natural resources. Teach
    a student and you have reached one student, train a teacher and your
    reach is boundless.
        Specifically the requested appropriation will be used to provide
    intensive classroom and field training to tribal authorities using oil
    and brine-impacted sites on tribal lands as field laboratories. Tribal
    personnel will obtain valuable hands-on experience in site assessment
    and characterization, spill control, and remediation using both
    established technology and new innovations that offer greater cost
    effectiveness and environmental protection. As a deliverable from this
    project IPEC will develop a curriculum, field training manuals, and
    audio-visual aids that can be used by trained tribal personnel to
    provide training to others. Of course a student does not become a
    teacher by simply acquiring information. Therefore, the program will
    also incorporate training to develop teaching skills. IPEC will also
    incorporate dialog between tribal personnel and regulatory agencies and
    oil and gas producers as an integral part of the program to promote the
    development of a mutually beneficial relationship between the tribes
    and the industry.
        IPEC will draw on faculty from member institutions as well as its
    partner organization the Waste-management Education & Research
    Consortium (WERC) to provide instructors for the proposed training
    program. Undergraduate and graduate students in science and engineering
    from these same institutions will participate in the program as
    mentors, teaching assistants, and participants in field projects. It is
    often said that the best way to learn is to teach. Therefore, an added
    benefit to the proposed project is the additional field training that
    IPEC and WERC institution students will obtain from their
    participation.

                                   about ipec
        The Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC) is an
    environmental consortium of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
    University, the University of Tulsa, and the University of Arkansas at
    Fayetteville. Funded as an EPA Research Center, the mission of IPEC is
    to increase the competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry
    through a reduction in the cost of compliance with U.S. environmental
    regulations. This mission is accomplished through a vigorous research
    program for the development of cost-effective technologies to address
    environmental problems having the greatest economic impact on the
    domestic industry and ``how to'' focused technology transfer to the
    industry. IPEC is advised by an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB)
    composed of environmental professionals, state regulators, and
    independent operators who review all research proposals for relevancy
    to IPEC's mission. This Board is dominated by the upstream independent
    sector of the industry. IPEC is also advised by a Science Advisory
    Committee (SAC), composed of leading environmental experts from
    academia and government laboratories, that reviews all research
    proposals for scientific quality. IPEC also sponsors the annual
    International Petroleum Environmental Conference as its principal
    technology transfer flagship.

                                   about werc
        The Waste-management Education & Research Consortium (WERC) was
    established in 1990 by the Department of Energy to expand the nation's
    capability to address waste management issues through education,
    technology development, and technology transfer. WERC member
    institutions are New Mexico State University, the University of New
    Mexico, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Dine
    Community College, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National
    Laboratories. Environmental education serves as the cornerstone of
    WERC. All WERC member institutions provide services to support
    undergraduate and graduate degree programs, environmental
    certifications, workshops, and conferences. WERC also operates four
    specialty environmental laboratories providing services to WERC
    institutions and the community; these are the Soil-Water Testing
    Facility, the Environmental Radioactive Monitoring Laboratory, the
    Hobbs Oil Water Experimental Facility and the Navajo Drylands
    Environmental Laboratory.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Karen Dixon Blazer on Behalf of Association of
                Navajo Community Controlled School Boards, Inc.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Karen
    Dixon Blazer. I appear on behalf of the Association of Navajo Community
    Controlled School Boards (ANCCSB), whose members operate BIA-funded
    schools on the Navajo Reservation under contracts or grants from the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. My testimony focuses on the need to
    adequately fund BIA school operations and facilities in order to
    improve the educational opportunities for Indian children.
        ANCCSB has placed highest priority on the need to eliminate the
    backlog in the construction and repair of BIA schools and to provide
    full funding for administrative cost grants.
                         school construction and repair
        ANCCSB supports the priority ranking of new school construction
    projects. The BIA budget request, however, does not fully honor the
    priority list. The Bureau properly asks for funding for a new Seba
    Dalkai School, which is 9th on the priority list. But then it skips
    over the 12th school--Shiprock Alternative--which would be next in line
    for funding (as the 10th and 11th schools have already been funded),
    and requests an appropriation for Fond du Lac, the 14th ranked school.
    The BIA budget justification admits that Shiprock will finish the
    design stage in September of this year; thus Shiprock will be ready to
    begin construction in October. We ask the Subcommittee to correct this
    error by providing construction funding for Shiprock in fiscal year 2
    000.
        ANCCSB continues to be seriously concerned about the tremendous
    backlog in replacement school and dorm funding. A December, 1997
    General Accounting Office report regarding Indian school conditions
    found that our school facilities are in poorer physical condition than
    other schools nationally. They found that 62 percent of BIA schools
    have at least one building in need of extensive repair or replacement,
    compared to only 33 percent nationally and to 38 percent of inner-city
    schools. In the GAO study, the BIA reported that the cost of the total
    inventory or repair needed for BIA education facilities was $754
    million. The size of this backlog increases daily, as construction
    costs continue to rise.
        Yet the BIA's budget seeks funding for only two new schools, and
    even more disturbing, actually seeks a reduction of $4 million for
    education facility improvement and repair. We find this unconscionable.
        The BIA's $30 million proposal for issuance of ``bonds'' will not
    cure the backlog. For that proposal even to be implemented, Congress
    must first enact the Administration's massive national school
    modernization initiative, a small part of which would provide $200
    million in tax credits for tribal schools if tribes are able to issue
    bonds for school construction. Since the proposed BIA bill language
    says the bonds would not be guaranteed by the Federal Government, the
    ability of most tribes to even issue a bond is highly doubtful.
        ANCCSB supports Senator Pete Domenici's position that the best way
    to alleviate the Indian school construction and repair backlog is to
    fully appropriate the needed funding over a 5-year period. We ask you
    to make this commitment now. As ANCCSB has previously testified, there
    is compelling evidence which shows a strong link between student
    achievement and the learning environment. But many Indian children are
    forced to attend school in buildings which are dilapidated and unsafe.
                           administrative cost grants
        Administrative Cost Grants enable tribes to exercise their self-
    determination rights guaranteed by acts of Congress. We need the
    Committee's careful attention to the BIA's budget justification
    regarding these Grants because to us it makes no sense. Note the
    following:
      --In the current School Year (SY98-99), 116 schools are operated by
            tribes and receive AC Grants. BIA reports that it supplied only
            89.54 percent of the amount required by law for these AC Grants
            using the $42,160,000 supplied in fiscal year 1998. (This
            program is ``forward funded''.)
      --In fiscal year 1999, Congress did not increase the budget for AC
            Grants; it remained at $42,160,000. These are the funds that
            will supply AC Grants in SY99-2000. BIA's budget says 129
            schools will be operated by tribes in SY99-2000 and then
            estimates that it will be able to supply 94 percent of the
            amount required by law. This makes no sense. How can the
            percentage of need met increase when there will be 13 more
            eligible schools but no additional funding to cover their AC
            Grant needs?
      --In the fiscal year 2000 request, BIA reports that 10 more schools
            will convert to tribal operation in the Navajo Nation alone in
            SY200-2001 (the school year covered by the fiscal year 2000
            budget)--which brings the total to 139 schools. BIA asks for
            $5.5 million to cover the AC Grant needs for these 10 schools.
            But it does not tell you how much of the system-wide AC Grant
            need it will be able to cover with this additional funding. If
            it were enough to supply 100 percent of the statutory formula,
            BIA would have said so. The only conclusion we can draw is that
            we will get far less that what the law requires. Obviously,
            when more schools are eligible for AC Grants, each will suffer
            a reduction from the full amount needed.
        Please ask BIA how much will be needed to cover 100 percent of the
    AC Grant needs of the 139 schools that will be tribally-operated in
    SY2000-2001 and appropriate the full amount needed.
        ANCCSB also urges the Committee to delete the BIA's bill language
    which places a cap on the amount of funds that can be used for AC
    Grants. This language is designed to overcome a decision from the
    Interior Board of Contract Appeals that Congress meant what it said
    when it directed that schools receive 100 percent of their AC Grant
    formula amount. This BIA language breaks faith with the schools that
    the Interior Department should be fully supporting.
                       facilities operation & maintenance
        We are puzzled why BIA wants to split the ``facilities operation
    and maintenance'' budget into two separate accounts--``operations'' and
    ``maintenance''. The Bureau's justification merely says it wants to
    ``prevent co-mingling'' of funds and to ``increase accountability for
    maintenance expenditures.'' The agency does not explain, however, what
    the problems are with the current system, nor how this proposed change
    in budget organization will ``cure'' any perceived problem.
        If the Bureau wants to achieve some specific accounting objectives
    with regard to the Bureau-operated schools, it has the authority now to
    do so. But the separation of this budget category into two parts will
    not give BIA control over whether funds provided to contract and grant
    schools are spent for ``operation'' or ``maintenance''. The directives
    applicable to use of funds by contract and grant schools are set out in
    the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Tribally Controlled Schools
    Act, not by how the BIA decides to organize its budget request.
    Frankly, it does not make sense for BIA to dictate from its Central
    Office how the whole system should use its operation and maintenance
    funds. Local school boards must have the ability to decide how best to
    allocate scare resources to respond to the conditions and circumstances
    of their own buildings.
        The more important issue, however, is that the combined request for
    ``operation'' and ``maintenance'' remains woefully inadequate to meet
    facilities needs. Last year, a draft of the BIA budget contained a
    brutally frank acknowledgment that the budget request was so low that
    ``all BIA funded schools will experience lower operating budgets and
    continued deterioration of physical plant conditions, and will
    perpetuate unsafe conditions for students and school staff.'' (The four
    paragraph analysis of the facilities O+M budget was deleted from the
    justification before it went to Congress, so you did not get to see
    it.) The fiscal year 2000 budget request is only slightly more than
    last year's.
        At best, the combined $79 million requested for facilities is 33
    percent below the needed amount, according to the BIA's FACCOM formula.
    We ask the Committee to appropriate $118 million to fully fund
    education facilities needs.
                             student transportation
        ANCCSB commends the Bureau for continuing its efforts to bring
    funding for student transportation into line with the national average
    expenditures in public schools--but we're not there yet. BIA estimates
    that the fiscal year 2000 budget request will enable it to provide
    $2.19/mile in SY2000-01. By comparison, the national average was $2.92/
    mile six years ago (SY93-94). It is no wonder that schools must
    continue to divert ISEP formula funds to cover transportation costs.
        We ask that the transportation budget be increased by $6.2 million
    to at least bring the rate per mile to the six-year-old national
    average of $2.92.
                       indian school equalization program
        In 1991, a BIA Task Force recommended that the weighted student
    unit (WSU) be funded at $3,499. For the school year beginning nine
    years later (SY2000-01), the BIA's budget request is still more than
    $200/WSU short of that target.
        It is our goal to provide a high quality education for Navajo
    children to provide the tools they need to compete in today's world and
    become tomorrow's leaders. Our schools do a praiseworthy job with the
    resources they have, but we constantly look forward to the day when we
    can provide our children with educational opportunities that are more
    comparable to those enjoyed by other children in this country. For
    this, we must look for ISEP formula funding increases.
        We question the Bureau's budget priorities. For example, BIA seeks
    $7.3 million to fund 90 FTEs for ``agency/area technical support''.
    This works out to an average of $81,700 per person. Similarly, the $4.4
    million for ``education program management'' (part of BIA General
    Administration) will support 49 FTEs--an average of $89,100. By
    contrast, many of our schools can barely pay veteran teachers with
    masters' degrees a $30,000 per year salary. Is a Central Office
    bureaucrat really worth three times more than a classroom teacher?
        Please provide at least a $10 million increase for ISEF for SY
    2000-01.
                        tribal departments of education
        Every state in the Union has a state department of education
    supported with public funds provided by its state legislature. Congress
    is the ``state legislature'' for the BIA system schools. But if any
    tribe wants to have a tribal department of education, it has to pay for
    this out of tribal resources, as Congress provides no recurring funding
    for this vital operation. The Navajo Nation has funded its own
    department of education since its inception in the late 1950s because
    our tribal leaders place a high priority on education of our young
    people.
        We strongly support the National Indian Education Association's
    recommendation that Congress supply recurring funding to support
    operation and development of tribal departments of education. If you
    must look to other budget accounts to find funds for this effort, we
    suggest you start by moving moneys from the ``agency/area technical
    support'' and ``education program management'' budgets mentioned above.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for your
    consideration of these requests and for your interest in the welfare of
    Indian children in the BIA school system.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Phillip Belone, Executive Director, Ramah Navajo
                       School Board, Inc., Pine Hill, NM
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Phillip
    Belone. I am the Executive Director of the Ramah Navajo School Board,
    which is responsible for providing educational services to children on
    the Ramah Navajo Reservation in New Mexico. My statement describes the
    critical need for an additional permanent facility to address severe
    overcrowding at the Pine Hill School on the Ramah Navajo Reservation.
                             facilities background
        Historically, the Ramah Navajo community relied on the county
    public school system and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet our
    educational needs. Then, in 1968, the Gallup-McKinley County School
    District closed its public high school in Ramah. Because our community
    is so isolated, this action left most parents with no choice but to
    send their children to boarding schools far from home.
        Concerned that their children were being forced to leave their
    homes to attend school, our local tribal government officially
    established a school board in 1970. At that time, there was no formal
    Indian self-determination policy in place. Nevertheless, the Ramah
    Navajo community leaders took it upon themselves to meet and explore
    ways to develop a community school. They made trips to Washington to
    lobby for a school--at a time when such an activity was largely unheard
    of. Through their persistence and the just nature of their cause, they
    succeeded in getting Congress to listen to, and eventually support,
    them. Ever since then, Ramah Navajo has been a leader in Indian self-
    determination and has served as a model for other tribal governments.
    In fact, it was these grassroots efforts at Ramah Navajo that formed
    the basis for the enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act of 1975.
        The founding Board members successfully lobbied Congress for funds
    to start their own school system in 1970. This funding allowed the
    Board to renovate the defunct Ramah High School and to begin providing
    educational services to the community.
        In 1972, the Board again received school construction funding so
    that the Ramah Navajo Chapter could build a more centrally-located
    facility in Pine Hill. Phase I construction, which took place during
    the 1975-1976 school year, resulted in three buildings (high school,
    elementary school, and gymnasium) that were designed to meet the
    educational needs of 284 students. That first year, we had no running
    water on campus, and electricity was generated by locomotive diesel
    engines.
        Phase II construction, which was completed in 1979, helped to build
    a kindergarten facility, a library, and our transportation
    infrastructure. However, only two classrooms were added during this
    phase, which was not enough to address the fact that enrollment was
    exceeding building capacity.
        Due to our ever-increasing enrollment, in 1990, we constructed
    multi-purpose and middle school additions, for a total of eight
    classrooms. The additional space allowed us to meet health and safety
    standards and to alleviate overcrowding. Unfortunately, this situation
    did not last long.
                           student enrollment trends
        Since school year 1992-1993, our Pine Hill student population has
    climbed from 371 to 575 students. Our soaring enrollment figures, as
    illustrated in the graph below, has led to severe overcrowding. We are
    using every available space for classes, including converted office
    space, a teachers' lounge, and our student library, which means that
    elementary school students are not able to use it.
                            health and safety issues
        Over the last decade, our increased student enrollment has created
    several health and safety issues. Our current square footage per
    student has caused an increase in communicable diseases, transmittable
    viruses, and bug infestation, among other things.
        Safety concerns, such as a lack of proper fire evacuation routes,
    is also a growing problem.
        As you are aware, student achievement is directly related to a
    student's learning environment. In our situation, overcrowding is
    affecting the ability of our school to provide high-quality educational
    services to our children. Therefore, we request that you support our
    request to construct a new permanent facility for the students at the
    Pine Hill School.
                                funding request
        Based on current space and safety requirements, we immediately need
    six additional classrooms. We are seeking $1,237,160 to construct an
    8,643-square foot facility that would provide six 871-square foot
    classrooms and teachers' workrooms. The building would be a steel
    structure with a brick veneer in order to provide fire resistance while
    blending with our existing structures. Each classroom would be wired
    for computer technology and would contain ample storage space for both
    teachers and students. The cost estimate for the project follows:

    Architect/Engineering.........................................   $75,000
    Waste Treatment/Site Utilities................................   125,000
    Construction ($120/square foot)............................... 1,037,160

        Should we receive funding for this project, we anticipate that we
    could complete construction within 18 months. We have included with our
    testimony a proposed floor plan for the building.
        Children who attend class in the library or in the tiny room that
    was once a teachers' lounge are not receiving a satisfactory education.
    Student motivation suffers, student achievement suffers, and student
    self-esteem suffers. The children of our community have the right to an
    education that is equal to that received by other children in this
    country.
        In the past, we have successfully worked with Congress to meet our
    educational facility needs. We urge the Subcommittee to provide us with
    our funding request so that this fruitful relationship will continue.
    Thank you for your consideration of our request, and we would be happy
    to provide the Subcommittee with any additional information.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Burton Apache, President, Alamo-Navajo School
                                     Board
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Burton
    Apache. I am president of the Alamo-Navajo School Board. I am here to
    testify about the BIA school operations and IHS budgets for fiscal year
    2000.
        Despite its name, the Alamo-Navajo School Board does much, much
    more than run a school. Our 10-square mile reservation is isolated in
    south-central New Mexico, far away from what we call ``big Navajo.''
    Because of our remote location, the School Board is authorized by the
    Navajo Nation Council and the Alamo Chapter--which is a political
    subdivision of the Navajo Nation--to administer the education, health
    care, road maintenance, and community programs that serve the nearly
    2,000 members of our community.
                               school operations
    Facilities operations and maintenance
        The 185 BIA-funded schools rely on the Facilities O&M account to
    maintain a enormous inventory of federally-owned buildings that runs
    the gamut from schools, dorms, administrative offices, staff housing,
    and gyms to bus garages and repair ships, storage units, fire stations,
    and utility systems.
        Funding for facilities operations and maintenance has grown
    increasingly inadequate over the years. In fiscal year 1992, we
    received 95.78 percent of need. Last year, an internal draft of the
    fiscal year 1999 BIA budget justification admitted that a $77 million
    appropriation would not meet more than 68 percent of need and would, at
    best, enable a major portion of schools to operate ``at a bare minimum
    of need.'' Even more alarming is the fact that the final fiscal year
    1999 O&M funding level was even less than that, at $75.2 million.
        For fiscal year 2000, the BIA has requested only $79.1 million for
    facilities O&M, $51.83 million for operations and $27.28 million for
    maintenance. This will only supply about 67 percent of the level that
    we need to properly operate and maintain our facilities, especially
    given the fact that another 793,711 square feet will be added to the
    facilities inventory in fiscal year 2000.
        By the time that system-wide ``off the top'' expenses are deducted,
    we only receive about 30 to 40 percent of the funds needed to cover our
    costs. Since we cannot run a school without paying our utilities, we
    are forced to drastically reduce or eliminate minor repairs, routine
    preventative maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, and facility systems
    upkeep.
        As any homeowner knows, failing to maintain a structure decreases
    its value, comfort and livability, and leads to earlier and more
    expensive repairs or replacement. The same goes for schools, as the
    General Accounting Office confirmed in 1998 when it reported that BIA
    schools are in worse physical condition and have more unsatisfactory
    environmental conditions compared to other schools in the country.
        So, where do we turn when we absolutely need to make repairs? We,
    like most schools, take funds from our basic instruction account to
    make up the essential part of our facilities shortfall. I would guess
    that Congress intends that these dollars be used to educate Indian
    children and to provide their dorm services, but we just cannot do that
    until our basic operations and maintenance are fully funded.
        Therefore, we ask that you increase facilities operations and
    maintenance funding to $118 million.
    Administrative cost grants
        With Administrative Cost Grants, tribes or tribal organizations
    that operate schools are provided funds for related administrative
    overhead services and operations which are necessary to meet the
    requirements of law and prudent management. When 100 percent of these
    costs are not funded, we are again forced to use funds that are
    intended to provide classroom instruction for students.
        In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
    as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
    administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
    of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
    $42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
        In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
    despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
    SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
    the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, they can
    be at this level if there are 13 more schools but no additional
    funding.
        In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
    schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
    school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
    Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
    grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
        The budget also keeps the current appropriations rider that caps
    the amount of BIA funds that can be used for AC grants to the amount
    appropriated. This language is intended to overturn a 1997 decision by
    the Interior Board of Contract Appeals that said that the BIA violated
    the law by failing to pay the Alamo Navajo School Board and the
    Miccosukee Tribal School the full amount of AC grant that was required
    by federal law. We initiated this suit because the BIA underpaid our AC
    grant by more than $386,000 over a four-year period.
        We ask that you delete the proposal to extend the current cap for
    another year and instead fully fund AC grants at 100 percent of need,
    as required under the authorizing statute.
                                fire protection
        Several years ago, there were numerous news reports on the lack of
    fire protection at BIA-funded schools on the Navajo Reservation.
    Immediately after, the BIA authorized schools to use facilities O&M
    funds for fire services. We have received some minor equipment, like
    fire suits, and some volunteer training, as a result. But we still have
    not seen any additional funding for services or any truly significant
    improvements in fire protection.
        As a result, we still have only one fire truck. As we reported a
    few years ago, this vehicle is more than a quarter of a century old,
    and it carries only 500 gallons of water. This is the only fire truck
    on our reservation, which is the size of the District of Columbia, and
    we are expected to use it to protect $25 million in federal facilities
    and 1,800 homes.
        In its construction budget, the BIA requests funding to purchase
    new fire trucks for five specific locations. We were hoping that Alamo
    Navajo would make the list, but we did not. Our need for a new fire
    truck is critical. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to add us to the
    list of locations that would receive a new truck.
        BIA estimates that $200,000 will be needed for each of the
    locations identified in the budget. Frankly, if Alamo Navajo does the
    purchasing itself, we probably could obtain what we need for
    approximately $150,000.
                                 health issues
    Contract support shortfall
        We urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for IHS contract
    support costs.
        A cornerstone of federal policy under the Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act has been that Indian tribes not be
    penalized for electing to exercise their right to assume local control
    over federal Indian programs. In fact, the law requires that that
    tribes and tribal organizations receive an amount of funding equal to
    what the federal agency would have expended in its direct operation of
    a program, plus the amount necessary to cover certain administrative
    and overhead costs, also known as contract support costs.
        The estimated current contract support shortfall is $93 million for
    tribes that receive contract support and those who are on the waiting
    list. This figure may change as final negotiations take place and when
    the moratorium on IHS contracting is lifted.
        As the Subcommittee knows, a General Accounting Office report on
    IHS and BIA contract support is due in June, and an NCAI-led work group
    on contract support and a similar IHS work group are currently
    finishing their respective examinations of contract support policy
    issues.
        We urge the Subcommittee not to change the contract support system
    prior to completion of these reports and to fully fund contract support
    at 100 percent of need.
    Community health representatives/public health nurses
        The IHS budget proposes to reduce the Community Health
    Representatives (CHR) program by $5 million. We urge the Subcommittee
    to reject this ill-conceived idea and to keep funding at the fiscal
    year 1999 level.
        We understand that the Administration has explained that the
    proposed cut is a result of budget constraints and a decision to
    increase funding for public health nurses at the expense of the CHR
    program. Stated quite simply, at Alamo Navajo, we need both CHR and
    public health nurse services.
        We have had a public health vacancy at the Alamo Navajo Health
    Center for eight months. This position is critical to our service
    delivery system, because the public health nurse is the focal point for
    the clinic's medical providers to refer patients for specialty
    appointments, home visits, continuum of care issues, and compliance
    with prescribed therapy. Unfortunately, public health nurses are hard
    to come by, especially in a remote area like ours.
        We also need our CHRs as part of our service delivery system. CHRs
    are local residents who bridge the gap between the clinic and the
    community. Because we often have to hire ``outsiders'' as public health
    nurses, CHRS become cultural liaisons and case managers that provide
    access to community homes, translation services, appointment delivery
    and coordination, transportation, and general patient follow-up.
        Currently, we have four CHRs and a budget of $69,436. The proposed
    $5 million cut to the CHR program would reduce the Alamo Navajo CHR
    budget by $10,549. We would not be able to meet salaries and benefits
    for our CHRs, and the meager support costs we have (about $9,000) would
    be eliminated. In order to keep about $10,000 in support funds, which
    basically cover training and vehicle costs, we would have to eliminate
    one of our four positions. Frankly, we doubt whether the proposed
    public health nursing increase would offset the loss to Alamo-Navajo.
    In fact, we expect that our ability to support the existing public
    health nurse position and community health services with our CHR staff
    would be cut by 25 percent.
                                   conclusion
        As always, we appreciate having this opportunity to tell the
    Subcommittee about the needs and concerns of the Alamo-Navajo
    community. We look forward to working with you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Scott Hunsinger, Director, Non-Academic Programs,
                       Shiprock Alternative Schools, Inc.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Scott
    Hunsinger. I am the Director of Non-Academic Programs for Shiprock
    Alternative Schools, Inc., located within the Navajo Nation, in
    Shiprock, New Mexico. We are seeking the Subcommittee's support in
    righting a wrong that has been perpetrated in the BIA's education
    construction budget request for fiscal year 2000.
        The fiscal year 2000 BIA budget does not request funding for our
    school. This glaring omission means that the BIA has failed to honor
    its own new school construction priority list in making school
    construction funding decisions. Shiprock had every reason to expect
    that we, as number 12 on the priority list, would be next in line to
    receive a construction funding request. Much to our dismay, this did
    not occur.
                               the priority list
        In December 1991, the BIA solicited new school construction
    applications from schools in its system so that it could add additional
    schools to the bottom of its existing priority list. At that time, the
    priority list consisted of 11 schools.
        Shiprock filed its application for the construction of a new K-12
    facility in January 1992, within the application deadline. A year
    later, the BIA published in the Federal Register a consolidated
    priority list consisting of the original 11 schools, plus five new ones
    ranked in order from 12 through 16. Shiprock was ranked number 12.
        Significantly, the BIA's announcement indicated that, although it
    planned to change the process for new school construction applications,
    schools on the consolidated priority list would ``be retained, in
    order, on the list.''
        For the past 10 years, the BIA has requested and Congress has
    funded the construction of schools on the priority list as they
    finished their pre-construction planning and design phases. When the
    fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill was enacted, 10 of the first 11
    schools had been funded for construction.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request seeks construction funding for
    two schools. Quite appropriately, one of them is the Seba Delkai
    School, which is the only school of the 11 on the original priority
    list that has not been funded for construction.
        As number 12 on the priority list, Shiprock should have been the
    next in line to receive a funding request. Instead, the fiscal year
    2000 budget request passes us over and instead recommends funding for
    school number 14--the Fond du Lac Ojibway School.
        Both the Shiprock and Fond du Lac projects are in the design phase
    which immediately precedes construction. Shiprock is scheduled to
    complete design by September 1999, a fact that the BIA acknowledges in
    its budget justification. Therefore, we will be ready to start
    construction in October, when fiscal year 2000 begins, if Congress
    provides us with construction funds.
        The entire concept of the priority list is that schools will be
    funded for construction in the order of their ranking, so long as they
    are at the proper stage of design development. Shiprock is right on
    target with our design schedule. Yet we have been inexplicably passed
    over in favor of a lower-ranked school.
        It seems that we were not funded primarily because our project is
    larger and, therefore, more expensive than the Fond du Lac project. Our
    construction costs are an estimated $25 million, to serve 450 students,
    compared to $14.3 million, to serve 280 students. Frankly, the fact
    that our project costs more should not cause BIA to ignore its very own
    priority rankings, especially since we can begin building this year.
    This kind of action breaks faith with us and damages the integrity of
    the entire priority ranking system.
                                  the solution
        Shiprock is entitled to have its position on the priority list
    honored through the appropriation of construction funding in fiscal
    year 2000. This could be achieved in a number of ways.
        First, the BIA could amend its budget request and Congress could
    agree to provide the needed funds.
        Second, Congress could unilaterally appropriate additional
    resources for new school construction and direct that the funds be used
    for Shiprock.
                               the shiprock story
        Shiprock Alternative Schools, Inc. currently operates an
    alternative high school with 188 students, an elementary program with
    215 students, a residential facility for 94 students, and a special
    education program for approximately 20 students with severe multi-
    handicapping conditions. Despite the fact that we have been operating
    out of converted dormitory buildings since the school's inception in
    1976, these programs have achieved great success.
        The alternative high school was established in order to serve the
    at-risk youth who were experiencing social and academic problems in a
    conventional academic setting. Throughout the school's history, we have
    been the school of last resort for high school students who have
    dropped out, who have child care needs, or who have had disciplinary
    problems. For these individuals, our school provides a second chance
    for them to complete their high school education. We are very proud of
    the graduation rates achieved by these students, which has averaged 30
    students each year over the past three years.
        Our elementary program is based on the principles of early
    intervention and prevention, focusing on the academic and social needs
    of individual students through a blend of conventional and traditional
    Navajo educational approaches. Class sizes are kept to a minimum to
    encourage maximum student-teacher interaction and individual attention.
    The elementary program has been so successful that we simply cannot
    accommodate all of the students who wish to participate and must keep a
    waiting list each year. This has all been accomplished through strong
    instructional leadership, as well as active parent participation and
    teacher dedication.
                              shiprock facilities
        Our buildings are 50-year old dormitories converted for educational
    use through the removal of an abundance of interior walls to create
    classroom space. The resulting space used for the educational programs
    is a known fire and safety hazard, summarized in a 1988 facility code
    compliance survey and a BIA inspection validation report that stated
    that the buildings were originally designed as dormitories and are not
    safe or suitable for use as educational occupancies. The age of these
    facilities has also created a situation whereby constant maintenance
    and repair is required in order to keep the buildings operational.
        Over 10 years ago, BIA inspectors advised that our facilities could
    not be effectively or cost-efficiently remodeled or repaired to meet
    code requirements and, therefore, should be replaced. This was formally
    acknowledged by the BIA in 1993 when our school was ranked number 12 on
    the new school construction priority list.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of Shiprock Alternative Schools, I thank you for your
    past support of Indian education. I hope that the Subcommittee will
    work with us to correct the completely unfair situation that I have
    talked about today. I would be happy to provide the Subcommittee with
    any additional information or answer any questions.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Preston McCabe, President, Pinon Chapter, the
                                 Navajo Nation
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Preston
    McCabe. I am president of the Pinon Chapter of the Navajo Nation and
    president of the Pinon Community School Board. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify again this year about the need to provide the
    full amount requested for IHS facilities construction and to adequately
    fund BIA education programs.
                                 health clinic
        We urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the Administration's $42.53
    million budget request for health care facilities construction. By
    doing so, you will help to make our dream of building our desperately-
    needed health center--which is number three on the clinic construction
    priority list--one step closer to reality.
        Our community, which is comprised of Pinon and seven other Chapters
    of the Navajo Nation, has been without an adequate health care
    facilities for decades. For 18 years, there were virtually no
    infrastructure improvements in our area because of the issues
    surrounding the Navajo-Hopi boundary dispute. Once the boundary issues
    were worked out in 1979, funding shortfalls prevented us from providing
    adequate health care services to our people.
        The 11,000 members of the Pinon community currently use what is
    known as a ``health station.'' It was built in 1959 and operates only
    three days per week, providing minimal nursing support, pharmacy, lab,
    and dental services. The nearest doctor is at least 50 miles away.
        The IHS and this Subcommittee have for several years recognized the
    need for a full-fledged clinic in Pinon. In 1992, the IHS approved a
    project justification document for it. After the design work was halted
    in September 1997 because of insufficient funding, we finally have been
    able to resume the project using the $1.037 million appropriated for
    the clinic last year.
        This funding will be sufficient to complete design work and put to
    us on line to receive phase one construction funding in fiscal year
    2001. Therefore, we ask that you fully fund the fiscal year 2000
    request for health care facilities construction so that we can continue
    to move toward accessing the basic medical services that are so long
    overdue.
                               school operations
        The Administration should be congratulated for proposing increases
    to the School Operations account, especially for the Indian Student
    Equalization Program and for Student Transportation. However, we would
    like to raise our concerns about the Facilities Operations and
    Maintenance budget, as well as several other issues affecting Pinon and
    other BIA-funded schools.
    Facilities operations and maintenance
        For the first time, the BIA school facilities Operations and
    Maintenance account is separated into two line items. We are extremely
    troubled by the combined funding levels for these two accounts.
        The ``operations'' line item request is $51.83 million and the
    ``maintenance'' request is $27.29 million, for a total of $79.1
    million. This amount is approximately $4 million more than the current
    funding level, and it simply is not enough to keep up with new
    inventory and to maintain existing buildings.
        The BIA expects that 793,711 square feet of new education
    facilities space will be added to its inventory in fiscal year 2000.
    The BIA estimates that the average cost of operations and maintenance
    funding is $4.25 per square foot. This means that, to fund the new
    square footage, an additional $3,373,271.75 would be needed just to
    keep pace. This leaves about $500,000 that could reasonably be
    considered an increase in terms of dollars that could be used to
    improve the current operations and maintenance for existing facilities.
        The BIA budget justification for fiscal year 2000 states that ``the
    General Accounting Office conducted a review of the Bureau's facilities
    management program in the first quarter of fiscal year 1998. Their
    findings support the need for increased funding for facilities
    operation and maintenance as essential to reducing the deterioration
    rate of facilities and avoiding higher costs in the future.''
        I could not agree more. It does not make good economic sense for
    the federal government to build new schools and dormitories, such as
    the $16 million dorm construction project we recently completed, and
    then fail to provide enough funding to keep them in good condition. We
    request that you provide at least $100 million for facilities
    operations and maintenance so that the federal government's investment
    in our children can be enjoyed by future generations.
    Administrative cost grants
        In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
    as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
    administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
    of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
    $42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
        In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
    despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
    SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
    the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, though,
    if there are 13 more schools but no additional funding.
        In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
    schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
    school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
    Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
    grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
        We also strongly object to the BIA's proposal to continue the
    current appropriations language which places a ``cap'' on the amount of
    BIA funds that can be spent on AC Grants to the amount appropriated for
    the year. This language subverts the Interior Department's legal
    obligation to pay AC Grants to contract and grant schools at 100
    percent of the amount determined by the statutory formula.
        We ask that you reject this language and instead provide the
    resources needed to fully fund the federal government's obligation to
    pay 100 percent of Administrative Cost grants to schools.
    Classroom expansion
        The BIA has requested $36.01 million for Facilities Improvement and
    Repair, which is a $4 million decrease from the current funding level.
    This cut is completely unjustified, given that the BIA itself estimates
    that the backlog of repair and improvement needs is approximately $734
    million.
        At Pinon, we are in desperate need for additional classroom space
    and therefore request that we receive funding for three portable
    classrooms.
        We currently have 84 students enrolled in our kindergarten program,
    and we anticipate that this number will jump to 100 next year. However,
    our current classroom space in our four rooms is sufficient for only 90
    students, according to BIA regulations.
        In addition, our Navajo Culture and Language program is currently
    being conducted in an empty bedroom in our dorms because we have no
    classroom space.
    Program expansion
        We urge the Subcommittee to lift the current moratorium on program
    expansion for BIA-funded schools.
        Many of our dormitory residents are bussed to a state-funded public
    school. Often, the public school is unable to meet their unique
    education needs, putting them on a path toward failure. We would like
    to offer these at-risk students an Alternative Education program that
    is tailored to meet their special needs. However, we cannot do so as
    long as the current ban on new program starts is in existence.
    Education technology
        Finally, I wanted to bring to the Subcommittee's attention a matter
    that has frustrated our efforts to make our students ready to meet the
    technological challenges of the new millennium.
        The fact of the matter is that the BIA is far behind in providing
    cabling, internet access, hardware, and software upgrades to schools.
    For example, over a year and a half ago, the BIA arranged to have local
    area network (LAN) cabling installed so that we can make the internet
    available to our elementary and high school students. Despite repeated
    requests to the individual who is supposed to do the work and supply
    the cable, the installation has not been done.
        We do not want to wait indefinitely to provide our students with
    internet access. Therefore, we request that you include report language
    instructing the BIA to finish the job immediately by directly providing
    schools with the funding that has already been appropriated for this
    critical purpose.
    Student transportation
        We are pleased that the BIA has requested a $3.74 million program
    increase for student transportation, which will provide a total funding
    level of $38.84 million. This proposed increase will allow a payment
    rate of $2.29 per mile. While this rate is 19 cents more than the
    current rate, it is still far below the national average.
        The national average for school transportation was $2.92 per mile
    three years ago--so we are still running below public school
    transportation funding, despite the fact that the roads our buses
    travel on are usually in much worse shape. That just does not make
    sense. I ask that you increase the BIA budget request for student
    transportation to a level that can provide at least the national
    average of $2.92 per mile that public schools receive.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for your past
    support of Indian education programs and of the Pinon Community School.
    We hope that this testimony will receive the same thoughtful
    consideration that you have given us in prior years and we would be
    pleased to provide you with any additional information about our
    priorities and concerns.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of George Cukro, Executive Director, Black Mesa
                                Community School
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is George Cukro.
    I am the executive director of the Black Mesa Community School, a
    kindergarten through grade eight Grant school located in an extremely
    rural area on the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona.
        The Black Mesa Community School opened in 1976 in used trailers
    that had been converted into small classrooms. Later, the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs constructed a small building with four classrooms, a
    library/conference room, an all-purpose room with a kitchen, a small
    office, and two student bathrooms. This facility was designed for 80
    students--but our average student population since 1991 has been 100
    students.
        In recognition of the fact that the condition of our facilities has
    limited our ability to provide students with a full range of
    educational opportunities, the fiscal year 2000 BIA budget request
    includes funding for six additional modular classrooms for our school.
    These portable units will be used as follows:
      --Two additional classrooms to reduce the student/teacher ratio in
            classes that are currently combined across grades because of
            overcrowding
      --One classroom for gifted and talented students
      --Two pre-vocational training rooms for our middle school students
      --One computer classroom for technological training
        Unfortunately, our employee housing inventory simply is
    insufficient to meet the needs of the eight new employees that we
    expect to hire in the coming year. Currently, our school currently
    employs 26 staff members. Of these people, eight reside in employee
    housing because of our geographic remoteness and lack of adequate off-
    site housing. Our inventory consists of eight trailer units, ranging
    from 12 to 30 years old. As you can see, there is a need to construct
    additional housing units and modernize our oldest units, so that we can
    house the employees that we will require to fully staff our new
    classrooms.
        To meet this need, the Black Mesa Community School requests that
    the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill authorize a transfer
    of $400,000 in BIA school operations funds provided to us in prior
    years to help us finance critical employee housing needs.
        You may recall that you included this type of appropriations
    transfer authority to the Cibecue Community School in the fiscal year
    1998 Interior appropriations act. Much like the Cibecue Community
    School, the Black Mesa Community School has been able to save
    approximately $1.3 million over the past eight years through careful
    financial planning and management. We are now seeking to use a portion
    of these funds ($300,000 in reserve Indian Student Equalization Program
    allocations and $100,000 in surplus Operations and Maintenance funds)
    to meet anticipated employee housing needs.
        We are not asking for any additional funding or that the
    Subcommittee set any kind of precedent so that we can address this
    situation. Instead, we are asking that you provide us with the same
    assistance that you provided to the Cibecue Community School in its
    attempt to meet its critical facility needs.
                               school bus garage
        The BIA has requested $36.01 million for Facilities Improvement and
    Repair, which is a $4 million decrease from the current funding level.
    This cut is ludicrous, given that the BIA itself estimates that the
    backlog of repair and improvement needs is $734 million.
        For example, at Black Mesa we are in desperate need of a metal
    garage for our school buses. There is simply nowhere to repair or store
    our buses. For minor servicing, we must travel 25 miles each way on an
    unpaved road filled with 12-inch ruts, mud, snow and ice. For major
    repairs, the trip is 150 miles.
        If we had a metal garage, we could save substantial wear and tear
    on our already fatigued buses by storing them indoors and servicing
    them on-site.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for your past
    support of the Black Mesa Community School's need for additional
    classroom space. We hope that this testimony will receive the same
    thoughtful consideration that you have given us in prior years and we
    would be pleased to provide you with additional information about our
    priorities.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Wallace Tsosie, Board Member, Greasewood Springs
                             Community School, Inc.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Wallace
    Tsosie. I am a board member of the Greasewood Springs Community School,
    Inc., located on the Navajo reservation. My testimony today focuses on
    the need to provide additional funding for BIA-funded school
    operations.
        The Greasewood Springs Community School serves the educational
    needs of 349 students in grades kindergarten through grade eight. Since
    July 1, 1996, our school has been operated by a local Board of
    Directors through a Grant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to
    the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, Public Law 100-297.
        First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the
    Administration for its proposed increases to the Indian Student
    Equalization Program, Student Transportation, and Administrative Cost
    Grants. However, there remains much more that must be done if the
    children who attend BIA-funded schools are to be on a level playing
    field with public school students throughout America.
                     facilities operations and maintenance
        The Facilities Operations and Maintenance account is separated into
    two line items in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, a decision that
    the BIA says was based on a February 1998 Interior Department report on
    facilities maintenance issues.
        The ``operations'' line item request is $51.83 million, while the
    ``maintenance'' request is $27.28 million, for a combined total of
    $79.1 million. This is but a small increase over the fiscal year 1999
    funding level of $75.2 million--which, in turn, was nearly $2 million
    less than the BIA had asked for. Even that original request was far
    below the amount needed to properly operate and maintain facilities.
        Last year, an internal draft of the fiscal year 1999 BIA budget
    justification admitted that a $77 million appropriation would not meet
    more than 68 percent of need, and would, at best, enable a major
    portion of schools to operate ``at a bare minimum service level.'' This
    part of the budget justification was deleted from the final version.
        The fiscal year 1999 narrative also stated that the average cost of
    O&M funding is $5.00 per square foot--but this year's justification
    says that the average cost is only $4.25 per square foot. I just do not
    understand how O&M costs could have declined by 15, or any other,
    percent!
        In fiscal year 1998, Congress approved $3.14 million for the
    construction of a new gymnasium at the Greasewood School. This funding
    fulfilled a promise made by the BIA more than a decade ago, and will
    allow us to finally fix our serious overcrowding and safety problems.
    Unfortunately, without adequate O&M funding, the gym's useful life will
    be significantly reduced--which means a lower return on the investment
    of tax dollars you put into it.
                           administrative cost grants
        AC Grants provide funds to tribes or tribal organizations operating
    schools in lieu of contract support. They are designed to enable tribes
    and tribal organizations to operate contract or grant schools without
    reducing direct program services to students. Tribes are provided funds
    for related administrative overhead services and operations which are
    necessary to meet the requirements of law and prudent management. When
    100 percent of our costs are not funded, we are forced to use
    critically-needed dollars which should be used to provide classroom
    instruction to students.
        In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
    as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
    administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
    of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
    $42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
        In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
    despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
    SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
    the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, though,
    if there are 13 more schools but no additional funding.
        In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
    schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
    school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
    Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
    grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
        Furthermore, the budget retains the current appropriations language
    which places a ``cap'' on the amount of BIA funds that can be spent on
    AC Grants to the amount appropriated. This language is designed to
    overturn the Interior Department's legal obligation to pay AC Grants to
    contract and grant schools at 100 percent of the amount determined
    through a statutory formula. We strongly urge that the Subcommittee
    reject this language.
                             student transportation
        We are encouraged that the BIA has requested a $3.74 million
    program increase for student transportation, for a total funding level
    of $38.84 million. The budget narrative states that school bus mileage
    will increase by approximately 600,000 miles in SY 2000-2001 and that
    the proposed increase will allow a payment rate of $2.29 per mile,
    which is 19 cents more than the current rate. However, the projected
    payment rate is still far below the national average of $2.92 reported
    for public schools for school year 1993-1994.
        Our reservation has primitive road conditions, with our buses
    covering 253 unpaved and 289 paved miles every day. We are in dire need
    of four-wheel-drive buses which would allow us to get students to
    school and back home safely. Our transportation budget is hit
    especially hard during the winter months, when bad road conditions mean
    that our buses break down on a regular basis.
        We also need a garage or repair facility to deal with these
    breakdowns. For example, every single tire repair must be taken to
    Holbrook, which more than 50 miles away. This is time-consuming and
    quite expensive. In addition, we would like to install a diesel fuel
    pump at the school because the Greasewood Trading Post, the closest
    fuel outlet, is so costly.
        Finally, additional transportation funding would allow us to
    increase the number of bus drivers we employ. Right now, we are always
    short of adequate bus drivers, which leads to transportation problems
    for students.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
    considering these requests and for your attention to the welfare of
    Indian children at the Greasewood Community School.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Martha Garcia, President, Ramah Navajo Chapter
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Martha
    Garcia. I am President of the Ramah Navajo Chapter, a community located
    in the west central mountains of New Mexico. My testimony today focuses
    on providing the resources to fund the acquisition of the Bond Ranch by
    the Ramah Navajo Chapter, as well as our support for increased law
    enforcement, Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), and contract support
    funding.
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter is a certified chapter of the Navajo
    Nation government with over 3,000 members. Our community has a land
    base of 154,553 acres, which is comprised of a ``checkerboard'' of
    trust land, individual allotted land, and fee land purchases by or for
    the Chapter. As a governmental entity of the Navajo Nation, the Chapter
    has been authorized since 1986 by the Navajo Nation to contract Bureau
    of Indian Affairs programs pursuant to Public Law 93-638. The Chapter
    currently operates programs and services previously administered by the
    BIA under a Model Contract through our Consolidated Tribal Government
    Programs. In addition, the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., a non-
    profit organization in our community, operates five TPA--and
    educational--programs under a Model Contract.
        Our mission is to nurture the well-being and growth of our
    community and its people by promoting the development of comprehensive
    community services, programs and opportunities; by encouraging the
    development self-sufficiency through self-determination; and, by
    maintaining respect of our traditional values of cultural heritage and
    family.
            the bond ranch acquisition economic development project
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter requests $1.7 million to purchase the Bond
    Ranch and to establish a tribal ranch on that land. The Bond Ranch is
    located in the Ramah Navajo Community and is surrounded and adjacent to
    tribal trust land and Individual Indian Allotments.
        Records indicate that the Ramah Navajos settled and continuously
    occupied the land on which the Bond Ranch is located since the 1500s.
        In 1863, the United States waged an intensive war against the
    Navajo people. During this period, a number of Ramah Navajo families
    were exiled to Fort Sumner, New Mexico. In 1868, however, a treaty
    between the United States and the Navajos allowed the people to return
    home. The Ramah Navajo families returned to their homes in Ramah.
        In the late 1800s, Mormon missionaries established a settlement in
    Ramah. They eventually pushed the Ramah Navajos out of productive
    farming areas and into land covered with volcanic rock. As more non-
    Indian settlers moved into the area, more lands were taken from the
    Ramah Navajo people.
        Beginning in 1920, some Ramah Navajos were allotted land, which
    created a small land base for our people.
        In the 1940s, the New Mexico and Arizona Land Company began selling
    large quantities of land and, in order to preserve the use of these
    lands for the Ramah Navajos, the Picuris and Pojoaque pueblos purchased
    55,000 acres. In 1951, the Navajo Nation purchased this land from the
    pueblos for the continued use by the Ramah Navajos.
        In the late 1930s, the Bond family acquired a ranch on these lands,
    which was used for a sheep and cattle ranch and a bean farm. While the
    sheep ranch and bean farm ceased operations in 1950, the cattle ranch
    continues to operate today on 12,320 acres--or 19.25 sections of open
    grazing land--which is comprised of both deeded and state-leased lands.
    In June 1997, the Bond family publicly offered the ranch for sale at a
    price of $150 per acre for the deeded land, for a total purchase price
    of $1.464 million.
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter would benefit greatly by purchasing the
    Bond Ranch. The Chapter intends to use it for such economic development
    projects as a cattle and sheep ranch and a hydroponic greenhouse.
    Purchasing the Ranch also would allow us to consolidate some of the
    currently ``checkerboarded'' land in our community. We have actively
    explored grant opportunities from federal agencies to purchase the
    Ranch but so far have come up with nothing. Therefore, we request that
    direct funding for the Ranch be provided in the fiscal year 2000
    Interior Appropriations bill.
               additional law enforcement funding is badly needed
        A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report on crime in Indian
    Country presented a disturbing picture of violence on our reservations.
    BJS reported that the rate of violent victimization is more than double
    the national average. American Indians between the ages of 18 and 24
    experience the highest per capita rate of violence of any racial group
    considered by age--about one violent crime for every four people in
    this age group.
        At the Ramah Navajo Chapter, we have not been immune from crime and
    violence. We have alcohol-related crimes. We have murder. We have
    assaults.
        One reason for our rising crime rate is a lack of a police
    presence. We have nine law enforcement vehicles in our inventory, and
    all of them have over 100,000 miles on them. The rough terrain of our
    community means that our vehicles experience faster than average
    deterioration and higher than normal maintenance costs. We have funding
    to replace four of them this year, but we need additional funding to
    replace the other five.
        In addition, we only have nine law enforcement officers available
    to patrol a 150,000-acre area. Clearly, we must increase our police
    force if our people are to feel safe and secure.
        The budget request would provide a total of $137.8 million for the
    President's Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, including
    a $20 million program increase to fund the Bureau's portion of this
    joint effort with the Department of Justice.
        We strongly urge the Subcommittee to fully fund this request. While
    the Ramah Navajo Chapter supports the Justice Department Indian Country
    Law Enforcement Initiative, we are concerned that the DOJ funding is
    provided primarily through discretionary grants. We must ensure that
    law enforcement funding gets to all tribes that are in need, not just
    those with good grant writers.
        According to the BIA's budget justification, the additional law
    enforcement funds will continue to focus on core law enforcement
    issues, including hiring additional Bureau and tribal law enforcement
    personnel, ensuring that new employed personnel are trained and
    certified, connecting additional law enforcement programs to the INLINE
    system for statistical reporting, and vehicle replacement for those
    vehicles with mileage of 100,000 miles more.
        We ask you to ensure that the hiring of law enforcement officers
    and providing police vehicles are made the top priorities in the
    expenditure of these additional dollars.
                      tribal priority allocations funding
        In keeping with our goal of gaining self-sufficiency through self-
    determination, the Chapter in 1986 began contracting under Public Law
    93-638 programs previously run by the BIA. Through TPA funding, we are
    able to tailor our budget and to prioritize our programs to address the
    unique circumstances of our community, which suffers from an extremely
    high poverty level.
        Today, our unemployment rate is over 70 percent. Over 60 percent of
    our community members live in substandard homes, which often lack
    electricity, water, and wastewater facilities. Over 65 percent of our
    BIA-maintained roads are in poor conditions.
        Furthermore, due to welfare reform, we are being forced to provide
    additional financial assistance to those Chapter members who are simply
    unable to find work in our community, which simply does not have an
    economic base.
        As you can imagine, current TPA funding levels have not been enough
    to meet our housing, social services, community development, and
    scholarship needs.
        The budget request includes a $17 million increase in TPA spending,
    but this is simply not enough to meet our governmental needs. In fiscal
    year 1995, TPA funding was cut drastically and, since then, tribal
    governments have increasingly fallen behind in their ability to provide
    services in their communities.
        TPA funding still has not been restored to the fiscal year 1995
    level and has not even kept up with inflation. We urge the Subcommittee
    to restore TPA funding to the fiscal year 1995 level, adjusted for
    inflation, so that we can meet our governmental responsibilities at the
    local level.

                          contract support shortfalls
        Every year, the BIA's budget request for contract support costs has
    been significantly less than the amount needed by tribal governments to
    effectively administer programs under the authority of the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act.
        For fiscal year 2000, the proposed contract support budget is
    $121.34 million, or $6.1 million over the fiscal year 1999 level. The
    Administration acknowledges that, even with such an increase, the
    amount ``will only maintain approximately the existing percentage level
    of support for contracting Tribes.'' The BIA estimates that the fiscal
    year 2000 shortfall will exceed $23.2 million, or 16 percent.
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter lacks other tribal resources and is
    totally dependent on federal funds to operate its programs. In November
    1998, the Chapter ran out of money due to contract support shortfalls
    that arose because the BIA had failed to pay 100 percent of negotiated
    indirect costs for several years.
        So that we could alleviate our immediate cash flow crisis, we had
    no choice but to negotiate with the BIA to receive our fiscal year 1999
    Tribal Priority Allocations funds earlier than planned. However, this
    band-aid approach does not address the fundamental problem of the
    federal government's failure to meet its obligation under the law to
    fully fund contract support.
        Another problem is the timing of contract support distributions. At
    the Albuquerque Area Office, the BIA distributes final contract support
    funding on or near the last day of the fiscal year (September 30). This
    restricts tribes from managing their contract support funds in a
    prudent manner. The Ramah Navajo Chapter operates on a calendar year
    and receives no funding for the fourth quarter. For the last two years,
    our funding levels were capped at between 75 and 80 percent. Receiving
    word on or near the last day of our third quarter that we are not going
    to receive any additional contract support dollars for the year makes
    it extremely difficult to manage our cash flow responsibly.
        For these reasons, the Ramah Navajo Chapter urges the Subcommittee
    to consider the following positions with respect to contract support
    funding:
        1. The federal government must consider the fact that, as long as
    Tribes exercise their rights to operate programs under the authority of
    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, there will
    be a need to fully fund contract support.
        2. The federal government must comply with existing court decisions
    and fund the contract support costs of other federal agency programs
    associated with Public Law 93-638 and the BIA must increase contract
    support funds for those federal agencies that do not pay contract
    support at the approved and negotiated indirect cost rate.
        3. The BIA should distribute contract support funds when Tribal
    Priority Allocation funds are allocated and distributed so that
    contractors will know their funding levels and be able to manage their
    funding more prudently.
        4. The Interior Department should increase its staff at the Office
    of the Inspector General in order to more quickly process indirect cost
    proposals and negotiate indirect cost agreements.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of the Ramah Navajo Chapter, I would like to thank the
    Subcommittee for its consideration of our requests and for its
    willingness to support programs which benefit our Chapter and Indian
    country as a whole.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Young Jeff Tom, President, Mariano Lake Community
                       School, Inc. of the Navajo Nation
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Young Jeff
    Tom. I am president of the Mariano Lake Community School Board, which
    operates a kindergarten through grade six Bureau of Indian Affairs-
    funded Grant school located in the mountains of western New Mexico. My
    testimony focuses on the urgency in meeting the education construction
    and administrative cost needs of BIA-funded schools in fiscal year
    2000.
        Our school was built in 1952 and was one of the first schools
    established in the Eastern Navajo Agency. A total of 264 students from
    the communities of Mariano Lake and Pinedale attend our school, which
    is located in the Great Continental Divide Mountain Range,
    approximately 30 miles from Gallup and 25 miles from Crownpoint, New
    Mexico.
        Of our total enrollment, 63 children in grades one through three
    live in our dormitory. Every Friday afternoon, these children are
    bussed home, where they are picked up again on Monday morning. Our day
    school students are those who have access to county and paved roads.
    They are picked up and brought to school by 8:00 each morning, at which
    time they are provided with breakfast. They are bussed home at 2:30 in
    the afternoon.
                               facilities issues
        Mariano Lake Community School has the following facilities
    inventory:
      --Dormitory--Good condition; renovated in 1991
      --Main building housing administrative offices, food services, six
            classrooms--Good condition; renovated in 1991
      --Facility maintenance building--Good condition; renovated in 1991
      --Portable kindergarten classroom--Temporary classroom housing 40
            students; located outside main building
      --Four portable classrooms housing grades four through six--No
            bathroom facilities for sixth grade
      --Transportation services trailer--Poor condition
      --Employee housing--Two duplex apartments for teachers and one house
            for principal; all built in 1954 and in poor condition
      --Computer laboratory/staff offices--Poor condition; built in 1954
      --School library--Too small to hold books, materials, audio-visual
            equipment
        We have been trying for more than ten years to have a gymnasium
    built for our students. This was expected to be done as Phase II of the
    Mariano Lake construction plans, which commenced in the 1980's. To
    date, however, the BIA has not honored its commitment to completed our
    gym project. Without a gymnasium or even a multi-purpose facility, our
    students have to use the school's dining room for physical education
    class. Since these classes are held while food is being prepared, the
    amount of dirt and dust that they generate has become a health and
    safety concern.
        Our top facilities priorities are to construct a gymnasium and to
    replace our portable classrooms with a permanent building. However,
    unless Congress increases the BIA's education construction budget
    request, we will be waiting a long time for these goals to be realized.
        As the Subcommittee knows, the BIA has requested only $36.01
    million for Facilities Improvement and Repair, which is a $4 million
    cut from the current funding level. Given that the BIA itself estimates
    that the backlog of repair and improvement needs is $734 million, I
    cannot imagine why more funding was not requested. The Subcommittee
    should immediately correct this situation and increase FI&R funding to
    a level that will make a serious dent in the backlog.
        The BIA has asked for $30 million for a ``school bond'' initiative
    that is tied to the President's multi-billion dollar initiative for
    school construction nationwide through the use of tax credits. A 1.5
    percent share of this initiative would be reserved for tax credits for
    tribal school construction, but this would require participating tribes
    to issue bonds, sell them in the bond market, and apply to the
    Secretary of the Interior for money from the $30 million fund to pay
    back principal.
        Frankly, we believe that few tribes with school construction needs
    would be able to issue or market these bonds, especially since they
    would not be guaranteed by the United States. Thus, this is not a good
    solution to the pressing need for new facilities in Indian country.
        We believe the wiser course is to use this $30 million to help
    reduce the known backlog of school construction and improvement items
    already registered with the Bureau, such as our gymnasium project. We
    urge the Subcommittee to keep this $30 million in the construction
    account and use it for actual construction projects instead of the bond
    initiative.
                           administrative cost grants
        In July 1998, our board made the decision to convert our school to
    grant status so that we could exercise more local control over
    education, a philosophy that seems right in line with the Congressional
    Majority's education policy.
        Frankly, the fact that Administrative Cost Grants are not fully
    funded makes it extremely difficult for us to exercise our right to
    operate educational programs at the local level. Under federal law, AC
    Grants are supposed to provide tribes and tribal organizations with the
    resources they need to cover the administrative overhead and
    operational expenses that are part and parcel of running a BIA-funded
    school.
        In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
    as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
    administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
    of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
    $42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
        In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
    despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
    SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
    the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, though,
    if there are 13 more schools but no additional funding.
        In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
    schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
    school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
    Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
    grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
        The only way to make sure that tribal governments have the real
    ability to exercise their right to operate their own education programs
    under Public Law 100-297--and to provide high-quality educational
    services--is to fully fund AC Grants at 100 percent of the statutory
    formula.
                                   conclusion
        I appreciate having the opportunity to share the views of the
    Mariano Lake Community School with the Subcommittee and look forward to
    working with you to meet the educational needs of Indian children
    across the country.
                                      _____

        Prepared Statement of Jacob Lonetree, President, Ho-Chunk Nation
        Good afternoon Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is
    Jacob LoneTree; I am President of the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin. I
    would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify before
    you today.
        The Ho-Chunk Nation, with 5,956 members, has a very limited trust
    land base spread through seventeen counties in the State of Wisconsin.
    Although the Nation has provided increased economic opportunities for
    its members in recent years, we still have a long way to go in this
    regard. Moreover, the long-term effects of generations of poverty among
    our people are still very much with us today. This is particularly so
    with respect to health care. Our people suffer from alarming rates of
    diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, and cancer. Perhaps the most
    devastating is diabetes. Currently 29.1 percent of Ho-Chunk tribal
    members have been diagnosed with diabetes. This statistic is even
    higher for members over 40. In this age group, 39 percent of our
    members are diabetic. Even more alarming, we recently learned that 40
    percent of our 2-4 years old are classified as obese. Obesity is, of
    course, the leading risk factor in diabetes. Improving the health
    status of our members is a top priority for the Nation. In support of
    that goal, I have issued a Presidential Proclamation designating 1999
    to be the Ho-Chunk Nation Year of Fitness.
        The Nation is a member of the Tribal Nations Joint-Venture
    Coalition for Health Facilities. The Coalition is urging Congress to
    appropriate $15 million in funding for the Tribal-IHS Joint Venture
    Program authorized under Section 818 of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act. This Program is intended to provide funding for
    equipment and staff to operate a health care facility constructed by an
    Indian tribe in exchange for a no-cost, long-term lease in favor of the
    Indian Health Service. The Program was used successfully in the past
    for facilities in Oklahoma and Oregon, but has not been funded since
    fiscal year 1993. If funded properly, this Program could save the
    federal government millions of dollars in construction costs, provide
    Indian people and tribes with resources to address extremely important
    health care needs, and stimulate economic development in historically
    deprived areas of Indian country.
        The Nation, in hopes of funding for the Section 818 Program, has
    already shouldered the significant financial burden of building a
    vitally needed health facility for Nation members in Baraboo,
    Wisconsin. The Nation has expended over $14.5 million to construct the
    Ho-Chunk Nation House of Wellness or ``Wanaisguni Hocira.'' We are
    delighted to report that we completed Phase I of the facility and
    opened for business in December of 1998. We are now in the process of
    completing Phase II of the facility. Phase II will consist of a
    facility for community activities to improve the health and well being
    of our members. We believe that in order for our communities to be
    healthy, we have to provide our members with opportunities to engage in
    healthy activities. Phase II of the facility will provide these
    opportunities.
        The House of Wellness is the only tribally or IHS operated health
    facility within 80 miles. In undertaking to build this facility, the
    Nation is filling a void that has never been met in this area. Before
    this facility was constructed many tribal members were forced to seek
    medical attention at the Ho-Chunk Health Care Center near Black River
    Falls which the Nation also built. This is a round trip distance travel
    of 160 miles. Critical optical and dental services, which were provided
    to members as part of contract health services, were provided on a
    limited basis based on a medical priority. We simply have not been able
    to meet the demand for these services. Significantly, tribal members
    were not receiving important preventive medical services, such as pap
    smears, breast cancer screening and diabetes screening.
        Phase I of the House of Wellness provides a broad range of out-
    patient services, including health, laboratory, pharmacy, x-ray,
    dental, substance abuse, mental health, nutrition, health education,
    and community health nursing. We currently have a staff of thirty,
    including two doctors, two nurses, two nurse practitioners, one x-ray
    technician, and one dentist. The facility is planned to accommodate
    2,500-3,000 patients annually. The Nation seeks $3 million of the
    requested Joint-Venture funding for staffing and operation costs of
    this facility.
        We understand that the Indian Health Service in its budget request
    to the Office of Management and Budget requested $15 million for the
    Tribal-IHS Joint Venture Program. Unfortunately, the Office of
    Management and Budget did not maintain this funding when it passed the
    INS budget back to the Agency despite specific direction by the House
    Appropriations Committee last year requesting that this Program be
    reinstituted. The Joint Venture Program is an economical and innovative
    way to meet the overwhelming health care needs of Indian people.
        We urge the Committee to demonstrate that federal policy supports
    this tribal initiative, by including $15 million for the Tribal-IHS
    Joint Venture Program, and including $3 million for the Ho-Chunk Nation
    Wanaisguni Hocira in Sauk County, Wisconsin.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Chairman William F. Yallup, Sr., Yakama Indian
                                     Nation
                         appropriation policy concerns
        Fully Fund Agency BIA and INS Programs at Authorized Levels: the
    local BIA agency is unable to perform its most basic trust
    responsibilities at the current level of depressed funding. We ask the
    committee to fully fund these programs at their authorized FTE levels.
    We are specifically concerned about the following programs, which we
    request be funded at the Agency level at the amounts indicated:
        BIA Natural Resources Program: Request an additional $921,000. This
    program includes the functions of Real Estate Services, Land Services
    (including Environmental and Treaty Rights Protection), and Wapato
    Irrigation Project Billing. Trust responsibilities include: (a) leasing
    and distribution of income (>1300 active leases), (b) acquisition and
    disposal of real property, including fee to trust conversions, probates
    and wills, (c) farm /conservation planning for more than 2800
    allotments on more than 100,000 acres with crop market value in excess
    of $70 million, (d) multiple resource management on approximately 1.1
    million acres of range and forested land including six major watersheds
    affected by the ESA listing of steelhead and salmon, (e) natural and
    cultural resource protection and enhancement, (f) environmental and
    Treaty rights protection for the reservation and the ceded area, and
    (g) billing (>8400 accounts) and collections ($6,000,000 annually) for
    the 175,000 acre Wapato Irrigation Project.
        BIA Road Maintenance and Transportation Planning Program: Request
    $1,750,000. This program has the responsibility for all road
    maintenance and transportation planning on the 925 miles of primary
    road and 2,325 miles of secondary road located on the reservation. This
    chronically underfunded program's function is key to the governmental
    infrastructure and its ability to both provide services to the
    constituency and move goods to market.
        BIA Forestry Program: request an additional $940,000. This program
    is the heart of the tribe's economic base, administering forest harvest
    on 675,000 acres of commercial timberland. The program includes forest
    planning and inventory (including pre-sale planning, forest inventory,
    and a GIS and Silvicultural Lab), and forest management (including sale
    administration, contract preparation and compliance, and collection and
    distribution of proceeds). The program has been historically
    underfunded to the point of being unable even to fulfill its authorized
    level of FTE's.
        BIA Higher Education Scholarships: request an additional $150,000.
    The Bureau of Indian Affairs Scholarship program has not and is not
    being adequately funded. Although the scholarship need is rising, the
    Administration's funding request is declining. The increased
    scholarship need reflects the rising cost of a college education and
    the larger number of Indian students accepted into college. A key to
    economic development and self-sufficiency is a college education.
    Inadequate scholarship funding thwarts the successful efforts of Indian
    tribes to better prepare our youth for college and it sends the wrong
    message to students.
        INS Contract Health Services: request an additional $947,000. The
    primary requirement for Contract Health Services to provide assistance
    is the availability of funding. Contract Health Services currently
    receives $3,213,264 for patient care each fiscal year with no
    adjustment for increases in population and inflation. Increasing
    numbers of eligible patients continue to require medical and dental
    services. Health care costs are constantly increasing and alternate
    sources of payment are decreasing. The present budget is expended at an
    average rate of $80,000 per week, which only covers 75 percent of the
    year, and will prevent the delivery of needed assistance to eligible
    patients for the last 3 months of fiscal year 2000.
        Direction to Interior and Related Agencies: We ask that you direct
    the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Natural Resources
    Conservation Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish &
    Wildlife Service to enter into cooperative agreements or Public Law 93-
    638 contracts with the Yakama Nation as provided under Public Law 103-
    413 to fund coordination, participation, and project implementation
    under the many ESA recovery plans. Each of the federal agencies has had
    several years to implement authorized programs to provide for healthy
    and sustainable fisheries. As an effective alternative, the Yakama
    Nation urges you to direct these agencies to fund the Tribe's
    restoration program to reach that goal.
        Self-determination Contract Support: Request $750,000. This year,
    indirect costs are expected to be funded at less than 90 percent. The
    shortfall is a guaranteed out-of-pocket cost to the Yakama Nation of
    $750,000 in fiscal year 2000, which we will incur performing functions
    for and on behalf of the Federal government. We urge the Committee to
    fully fund the contract support budget for both the BIA and the IHS so
    that these federal contract obligations may be fulfilled.
        Leavitt Act Collections: The Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP or
    Project) is one of the largest Indian irrigation projects operated by
    BIA. It is located entirely within the exterior boundaries of the
    Yakama Indian Reservation in Yakima County, Washington. The Project
    diverts approximately 600,000 acre-feet of water annually from the
    Yakima River, and irrigates approximately 142,000 acres of arable land
    within the Yakama Indian Reservation. Approximately 55 percent of the
    arable land (78,000 acres) is held in trust for individual Indians and
    the Yakama Indian Nation by the United States. Most of the Indian
    owners lease their lands to non-Indians. The remaining 64,000 acres
    (approximately 45 percent) are owned by non-Indians. In 1993,102,000
    acres were farmed by non-Indians, 13,000 acres by Indians, and 27,000
    acres were idle.
        Since 1993, the idle lands within the WIP have increased, placing
    the burden of meeting Project maintenance and operations expenses upon
    ``productive'' lands. The WIP has been arbitrarily designated by BIA as
    one of the few ``self-sufficient'' Indian irrigation projects, wherein
    O&M costs are assessed directly against the landowner, without the
    assistance of federal appropriations. In addition to the problem of
    ``idle'' lands being assessed, many properties within the Project are
    classified as ``productive'' despite having marginal agricultural
    value, and are not easily leased by the BIA. The O&M assessment upon
    both such unproductive properties has accumulated over the years to the
    detriment of the Indian owners, who have no means to pay. The
    threatened debt collection by BIA jeopardizes the health, safety and
    welfare of the Yakama people.
        The Yakama Indian Nation requests that actions be taken to defer
    further collection proceedings under the Leavitt Act, and to exempt
    Indian landowners within WIP from O&M assessments, past and future. We
    further request that annual appropriations be designated to offset WIP
    O&M costs that would be assessed against Indian properties. Annual
    appropriations would relieve the now unreasonable burden placed upon
    Indian property owners, and would permit necessary repairs in order to
    assure the reliable and safe delivery of services.
        Agricultural Enterprise Program: Request $1,125,000. This new
    economic development program is designed to capitalize on the value-
    added approach to resource utilization outlined in the YIN strategic
    plan. Instead of leasing out valuable farmland to other producers, the
    YIN is now actively involved in growing, harvesting, marketing, and
    distributing agricultural products on approximately 1,200 acres of
    tribal land. This effort has been completely financed by the YIN. This
    request will be used to consolidate the land base with several key
    acquisitions, prepare the fields, and develop a diversified crop
    management plan to enhance the program's production, distribution, and
    marketing goals.

                             specific funding items
        1. Support of Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) Conservation Plan
    implementation under Title XII of Public Law 103-434, Yakima River
    Basin Water Enhancement Project: Request $3,000,000, non-reimbursable.
    Implementation of the WIP Conservation Plan and the Toppenish Creek
    Corridor Plan will provide for precise control, measurement and
    conservation of irrigation water distribution on the Wapato Irrigation
    Project and the restoration of critical habitats. These funds are
    needed under the tenets of the act for the installation of turnout
    measurement structures, piping of small lateral canals, and improvement
    of water measurement and management programs.
        2. Repair of the Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) facilities:
    Request $5,000,000, non-reimbursable. WIP is the largest irrigation
    district in the Yakima Basin and is the largest operated by the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA). The importance of WIP to the local, regional,
    and national economy cannot be overstated, and it is jeopardized by the
    need for repairs. Capital improvements of WIP facilities required for
    basic project delivery services include: safety improvements, drop
    structures, power generation facilities, bifurcation structures, and
    pumps. Attention to this matter is urgent.
        3. Forest Development Program: Request $1,250,000. In order to
    continue sound forest management practices while protecting the welfare
    of our People, we ask continued funding at the previous year's level of
    $600,000 plus an additional $650,000. We have severe spruce budworm
    infestation in 300,000 acres and need to thin an additional 200,000
    acres. This backlog threatens the funding of our entire Tribal
    Governmental structure. This need has been acknowledged by the BIA
    Central Forest Office and the GAO recently issued a report documenting
    the insufficiency of the current level of funding (GAO/ACED-91 -53,
    March 1991) for forest development.
        4. Water Resources Management: Request $450,000. The Yakama Nation
    Water Resources Management Program was initiated to ensure Tribal
    technical involvement in all water resource management projects
    addressing ground and surface waters. The current water crises facing
    the Yakima Basin makes this an ongoing need. These funds will insure
    that the United States Government fulfills its trust responsibility to
    the Yakama Nation.
        5. Fish and Wildlife Resource Management: Request $1,496,000. We
    ask for continued funding of the fish and wildlife program at last
    year's level of $546,000 plus an additional $950,000. $400,000 of new
    money will address ongoing technical and managerial processes at the
    reservation, county, state, and regional levels relative to ESA
    listings, salmonid enhancement, watershed restoration and management,
    and co-management of big game resources. $150,000 of new money will
    expand the Northern Spotted Owl inventory and monitoring project, the
    workload of which has increased by 75 percent in the last three years
    due to the spruce budworm epidemic. $400,000 of new money will fund
    YIN's involvement in the FERC relicensing process for 28 non-federal
    dams in YIN's Ceded Area in the next 10 years.
        6. Educational Needs: Request $602,000. This request supports the
    Johnson O'Malley/Title IX Supplemental Education program (JOM). JOM is
    an integral part of tribal member secondary education, which allows
    increased parental participation and family involvement in the
    education processes supported by YIN's JOM programs. YIN will operate
    22 reservation, rural, and urban JOM programs in support of 3,010
    students during the fiscal year 2000 cycle. Money spent in education
    for the tribe now will ultimately save money in social services later.
    Over the years many Indian students have benefited academically,
    culturally and socially from JOM programs. We request that the funding
    and student count caps, which were frozen through the Tribal Priority
    Allocation Process (TPA) at $152/student in 1995, be removed. Actual
    costs incurred are $200/student to adequately serve our 22 JOM
    programs, yet, due to the increased numbers of students enrolling in
    these programs since 1995 (an average of 18 percent per year), our
    effective spending level has been reduced to $96/student under the
    caps. Increased funding must be allocated to reflect true need based on
    the number of actual students.
        7. Law and Justice/Public Safety Operations: Request $850,300. The
    Yakama Nation provides routine and emergency law enforcement services
    to a service population of approximately 9,005 Tribal members, and
    ancillary services to 35,000 nonmembers. These tribal services include
    enforcement of criminal and civil codes, fish & game law enforcement,
    natural resource protection, animal control, probation, and
    investigation and prosecution of criminal cases in the Tribal Court.
    YIN provides these services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on
    approximately 1.4 million acres. The Yakama Nation Tribal Courts have
    an ongoing need for access to legal periodicals and case histories.
    This request covers $425,300 in additional funds to meet our basic
    operational needs, $200,000 in additional funds to set up the Court law
    library, and $225,000 in additional funds for 4 new line officers.
        8. Law and Justice Facility: Request $26,000,000. The Yakama Nation
    operates a police department, jail, and Tribal Court system. These key
    elements of our Tribal governmental infrastructure have never been
    adequately funded, and the current jail facility, constructed 35 years
    ago as a temporary structure, is in a near condemnation state. Tribal
    sovereignty requires that we be able to function at the level of other
    non-tribal government entities and this will not be possible without
    this facility. The Tribe has renovated the existing structures out of
    its own funds but an adequate building will cost $26,000,000 and is
    beyond our capabilities. With the current emphasis on law and order it
    is important that Indian Tribes be included in nationwide
    infrastructure rebuilding programs.
        9. Noxious Weed Control: Request $150,000. The diverse economy
    supported by the Yakama Indian Reservation is extremely vulnerable to
    the epidemic proliferation of noxious weeds currently occurring in the
    western United States. Over 200,000 acres of irrigated farmland and an
    adjacent 600,000 acres of grazing land are potentially jeopardized. The
    severity of the situation was recognized by President Clinton in his
    February, 1999 Executive Order in which he recommended additional
    funding to combat the spread of noxious weeds. This request will be
    used to enhance the on-going tribal program dealing with this problem
    on reservation lands.
        10. Spruce Budworm Epidemic Emergency Package. Request $8,225,000.
    The YIN administrative forest is currently experiencing a Spruce
    budworm infestation of epidemic magnitude and a related buildup of
    Douglas fir bark beetles. This forest health problem presently impacts
    approximately 300,000 acres, or roughly \1/2\ of the Yakama Reservation
    forest, presenting the possibility of a landscape level wildfire at
    worst and extreme loss of income from unsalvaged timber at best. The
    YIN situation is currently the worst Spruce budworm epidemic in the
    western United States. Because this situation threatens not only the
    economic well being of the YIN, but the entire forest products industry
    of central Washington as well, the YIN Tribal Council declared a state
    of emergency in September, 1999. This request is concentrated in three
    areas; (1) repair of the primary transportation road required to remove
    the salvaged timber, (2) planning, conditioning, and implementing
    alternative timber sales, consistent with all ESA, NEPA, and tribal
    guidelines, in those areas impacted by the infestation, and (3)
    aggressive pre-commercial thinning in conjunction with overstory
    removal to disrupt the budworm's life cycle.
        If this emergency package is fully funded, it eliminates the need
    for the above requests for $150,000 for Spotted Owl inventory under 5.
    Fish and Wildlife Resource Management, and the new $650,000 under 3.
    Forest Development.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
                                  Reservation
        On behalf of the Colville Business Council for the Confederated
    Tribes of the Colville Reservation, I am pleased to have the
    opportunity to testify before the House Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies on fiscal year 2000 Appropriations.
                            bureau of indian affairs
    Inchelium public ferry
        The Tribes strongly support the Administration's request of
    $456,000 for the ferry boat which transports people across Lake
    Roosevelt and request an add-on of $195,000 for this important program.
    We further ask the Committee to prohibit the BIA from allocating
    funding needed for the ferry boat to other tribes in the Portland area.
    This funding is for a unique purpose and any attempt to reallocate this
    money according to a tribal shares distribution plan or otherwise would
    be detrimental to the people of the Colville Tribes.
        The ferry serves an isolated community of the Reservation and
    provides the only reasonable means of transportation to and from the
    community. In fiscal year 1998, over 200,000 individuals used the
    ferry. Lack of funding for the ferry would severely impact the social,
    economic and educational well-being of the Inchelium community. Many of
    our enterprises, professional staff, teachers, and other community
    members utilize this ferry to provide needed services to our people.
    School construction.
                Paschal Sherman Indian School
        Paschal Sherman Indian School, located on the Colville Indian
    Reservation near Omak, Washington is over 100 years old and is in
    desperate need of replacement. This school is critical to providing
    educational opportunities for Indian children throughout the northwest
    region. Many of these children have encountered severe economic and
    social conditions and Paschal Sherman has provided them with the
    opportunity to learn. Over 175 students participate in a well-balanced
    curriculum emphasizing the culture and traditions of the Colville
    peoples. In 1985, Paschal Indian school ranked 3rd on the BIA school
    replacement list. However, because the school board accepted the use of
    modular buildings, the school was taken off the BIA priority list. The
    life of those modular buildings has now expired and they pose
    significant safety hazards to our children.
        For over fifteen years, Paschal Sherman has been housed in a
    multitude of temporary facilities. Administrative offices, classrooms,
    gymnasiums and dormitories are all in poor structural condition. Some
    buildings have been condemned. The continued safety and operation of
    the school for the well-being of the children is a major concern to the
    Colville Business Council. Additional funds are required for the
    construction of new facilities and to address the backlog of repair
    work for the existing facility.
        Paschal Sherman represents just one of the many schools that make
    up the $1 billion backlog in education facilities construction. This
    massive problem must be addressed by a commitment from both Congress
    and the Administration, to address this problem in five years. Thus,
    the Colville Tribes strongly support the Budget Committee's
    recommendation that BIA school construction be funded at $308 million.
    This is the only way that $1 billion the severe backlog in education
    facilities needs will be addressed.
                President's Bonding Proposal
        While the Colville Tribes support the Administration's efforts to
    develop innovative solutions to the $1 billion backlog that now exists
    in BIA education facilities construction, the President's bonding
    proposal is not likely to work to address the overwhelming needs in
    Indian country. As we understand the President's proposal, if it were
    enacted it would authorize $11 billion in school construction bonding
    authority, financed through tax credits to investors. Of this amount,
    $200 million in bonding authority would be provided to the BIA for BIA
    and tribal schools. And for those schools on the BIA priority list, the
    Budget proposes $30 million to pay the principal of an estimated $75
    million in bonds.
        However, for those schools that are not now on the BIA priority
    list, the obligation to repay the bonds would rest with the Tribal
    governments. The reality is, that most tribes including the Colville
    Tribes do not have the resources to issue and repay public bonds. If we
    had the resources to undertake this type of financing we would have
    sought out private financing on our own.
        In essence, the federal government is asking Indian parents and the
    Indian children to pay for the cost of building and repairing these
    federal schools. The federal government assumed the responsibility to
    educate Indian children. Simply because many tribes have stepped in
    under the Self-Determination Act to operate most of these schools--and
    in fact have had better results in terms of higher test scores than
    when the BIA operated these schools--does not make these schools any
    less of a federal responsibility. The BIA/Tribal school system is one
    of two school systems that are solely a federal responsibility. The
    other is the Department of Defense school system. It is unlikely that
    the federal government would ask the Department of Defense families to
    pay for the cost of building and repairing their schools. The federal
    government should not ask Indian parents to assume this burden.
        Thus, while we appreciate the President's effort to resolve this
    staggering problem, the Colville Tribes do not support the bonding
    proposal. We urge the Committee to again direct the BIA to develop a
    proposal that will address the existing backlog in five years.
        Law Enforcement. The Colville Tribes have experienced dramatic
    increases in crime on the reservation. In fiscal year 1998, the Tribal
    Police ``calls for service'' totaled 8090. This is an average of 22
    calls per day. Insufficient resources make it difficult to staff
    officers in each of the four main districts. Accordingly, response
    times may exceed several hours due to the remoteness and poor road
    conditions between communities.
        Nationally, Indian people face substantially higher rates of
    exposure to criminal activity than any other population group. The
    steady increase in gang activities on the Colville Reservation is of
    particular concern to the Colville Tribes. Tribal Police Services are
    severely challenged by the need for additional funding to handle these
    increases and for additional safety and equipment purposes. Moreover,
    the increase in crime rate impacts associated law and order services
    including courts, jail and juvenile detention facilities, prosecutors,
    public defenders, probation and parole. In light of this great need,
    the Colville Tribes strongly support the requested increases for both
    the BIA and DOJ for the second year of the Administration's Law
    Enforcement Initiative in Indian Country.
        Detention Facility Construction. The Tribal jail was condemned
    several years ago. The Tribal jail is now third on the list of
    replacement facilities. We are in desperate need for the funding to
    complete the design phase of this project. In 1994, we completed 20
    percent of the design phase. However, no money has been dedicated to
    this purpose since then.
        Because our jail was condemned, we are forced to contract with
    local jurisdictions for the incarceration of our prisoners. The cost of
    contracting for this service is over $40 a day for each prisoner. This
    is more than the cost of a night's stay in some local hotels.
    Nevertheless, in order to maintain peace and protect the people of the
    Reservation from convicted criminals, we must bear this cost. It is
    clear that replacing the facility is a far more cost effective way to
    incarcerate the convicted criminals. We urge the Committee to include
    the funding to complete the design phase of this facility.
        Towards this goal, the Tribes support the $34 million requested in
    the Department of Justice budget for detention facilities. In addition,
    we ask that the Committee direct the Department of Justice to spend
    this funding according to the existing BIA law enforcement facility
    priority list. It is the duplicative for the DOJ to establish a new
    priority list for these facilities, when one already exists.
                             indian health service
        Community Health Representatives. We strongly oppose the
    Administration's proposed $5 million cut in the CHR program. The CHR
    program provides a vitally important link between the people in our
    communities and the medical facilities and providers that serve them.
    The CHRs at Colville provide a wide range of key services, including
    monitoring patients, administering the WIC program, and providing
    patient education. The CHRs are often the first to respond to medical
    emergencies. Beyond this, CHRs are trusted community members who are
    able to bring many tribal members, particularly the elderly, into
    contact with health care providers--in situations where those tribal
    members would in many cases otherwise not receive needed medical care.
    Those who seek to cut funding for the CHR program must be unaware of
    the fundamental role the CHRs play in helping our people access the
    medical care they need. We urge the Committee to provide a $10 million
    increase nationwide to the CHR program.
        Mental Health and Substance Abuse. The Tribes are very concerned
    that the Administration has not requested any increases in mental
    health funding. The overall health and welfare of our tribal membership
    is undermined by extremely high rates of alcohol and substance abuse.
    The demands placed upon the Children and Families Services, Youth
    Residential Shelters, Mental Health and Alcohol/Substance Abuse
    programs have increased as a result of the decline in the overall
    health of the Tribal members. Again, the major emphasis must be placed
    on the root problem--alcohol and substance abuse in the community. This
    is a major contributing factor in the increased need for many kinds of
    counseling services. For example, the Tribes have very high statistics
    relating to intensive child abuse risk and preventable death rates for
    children. Much of this, along with other problems we face, is directly
    related to alcohol or drug abuse in the homes. The Tribes strongly
    support increased funding for substance abuse programs and mental
    health programs.
        Contract Health. The Tribes strongly support the Administration's
    $24 million increase for contract health care. At Colville alone, we
    have an active user population within the Colville Service Unit, which
    includes Chelan, Douglas, Ferry, Grant, Lincoln, Okanogan, and Stevens
    counties of 6,732.
        Contract health care has a long history of being massively under
    funded. This year's budget will still only provide for only 60 percent
    of the total contract health needs throughout Indian country. Last
    year, the IHS recorded over 14,500 payment denials for services that
    were not within operating medical priorities. This translates into
    serious deficiencies at the Colville Indian Reservation and means that
    only ``emergency'' treatment can be received throughout most of the
    fiscal year.
        The insufficient funding for contract care health funding leads to
    a lack of doctors, limited treatments and lack of early intervention
    and diagnosis. While in the long run it is much more costly to provide
    medical service for ``after the fact'' illnesses than to provide
    preventative types of health care services, we are not in a position to
    address the long term health needs of our people in this way. Funding
    is available only for emergencies. Moreover, the problems associated
    with the lack of contract health care funding will only escalate in the
    upcoming years as more geriatric services are required for elderly
    Tribal members returning home to the Colville Reservation to retire.
        Health Facilities. There are three IHS facilities on the Colville
    Reservation. The most recent of these was built over twenty years ago
    and the oldest was built in 1934. These clinics provide care to over
    27,000 patients annually. However, while the personnel at the clinics
    do an outstanding job at all of these facilities the Colville Tribes
    encourage the Committee to increase facilities maintenance and
    construction funding. The clinic in Omak is housed in a 1,698 square
    foot double-wide mobile home, which was converted into the clinic in
    1974. This clinic sees over 2000 patients a year. It is critical that
    this facility be replaced with another facility in order to provide the
    best level of care possible to the Tribal members of the Colville
    Reservation.
        Contract Support. Contract support dollars provide the Tribes with
    the administrative support for all of the contract functions assumed
    from the IHS. These dollars enable the Tribes to provide the mandatory
    financial, purchasing, personnel and other administrative support
    systems required by law. Over the past several years, the Tribes have
    received substantially less than the rates negotiated with the Office
    of the Inspector General. The reason for this shortfall is the
    substantial under funding of this function in the IHS budgets. For this
    reason, the Colville Tribes support the $35 proposed increases in
    funding for contract support within IHS.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Donald Moore, Sr., Chairman, Bad River Band of
                         Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Donald Moore, Sr.,
    Chairman of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, of
    Wisconsin. I appreciate this opportunity to provide the Committee with
    the Band's testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations.
                             indian health service
        Community Health Representatives. We strongly oppose the
    Administration's proposed $5 million cut in the CHR program. The CHR
    program provides a vitally important link between the people in our
    communities and the medical facilities and providers that serve them.
    The CHRs at Bad River provide a wide range of key services, including
    monitoring patients, administering the WIC program, and providing
    patient education. The CHRs are often the first to respond to medical
    emergencies. Beyond this, CHRs are trusted community members who are
    able to bring many tribal members, particularly the elderly, into
    contact with health care providers--in situations where those tribal
    members would in many cases otherwise not receive needed medical care.
    Those who seek to cut funding for the CHR program must be unaware of
    the fundamental role the CHRs play in helping our people access the
    medical care they need. We urge the Committee to provide a $10 million
    increase nationwide to the CHR program.
        Contract health services. The need for health care services has
    risen dramatically at Bad River--with our user population increasing
    from about 1100 in 1991 to about 3,739 today. But funding has failed to
    keep pace. With contract care funding of $740,000, this means we have a
    per patient allocation of $198 for contract care services--a good
    indication of just how meager these funds are. As a result of funding
    limitations, contract care must be limited to emergency care only. This
    creates great hardship among our people--who must suffer with illness
    and pain until it becomes life-threatening. This is no way to treat our
    people. The Budget calls for a $24 million increase in contract health
    care. We support the increase, and urge the Committee to do all it can
    to fully fund contract health care.
         Diabetes. At Bad River, diabetes continues to be a major problem.
    We appreciate that Congress has targeted resources to this diabetes
    programs in Indian country. Starting last year, we received a small
    grant to address diabetes issues at Bad River. With this grant, we have
    been focusing on our children and youth--providing a wide range of
    education, nutrition and fitness programs to help our next generation
    understand what can be done to deter or prevent the problems of
    diabetes. To be successful, these programs must be continued over time.
    We urge the Committee to continue to do all it can to continue to fund
    tribal programs to combat diabetes.
        D. Dental services. Our dental program is able to pay only for
    emergency dental work for adults. With a current budget of $104,400 our
    dental program has a long list of persons waiting for dental services,
    for which no funds are available. Often, the inability to obtain needed
    dental work for elders makes it difficult for them to eat--which in
    turn leads to further medical problems. We need an additional $200,000
    to provide services to those now waiting for needed dental care.
        Funding for Tribally-Constructed Health Clinic. In 1995, the Band
    took the initiative, using Tribal and grant funds, to build a new
    $500,000 health clinic on our Reservation. This replaced a tiny clinic
    that was located in a community building. While the new facility has
    enabled us to provide additional needed services, including pharmacy,
    the IHS has not provided us with the staffing and equipment costs
    needed to utilize our facility in full. We urge Congress to provide
    funds, as authorized under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, for
    IHS to provide needed staff and equipment in tribally constructed
    health care facilities, including for Bad River.
                                law enforcement
        Crime in Indian country--including at Bad River--is a serious and
    growing problem. The Administration's Law Enforcement Initiative calls
    for a $20 million increase over last year for BIA/tribal law
    enforcement across Indian country. It also includes $124 million to
    enhance Department of Justice law enforcement efforts, including
    additional funds to support tribal courts, and to provide grants to
    tribes for additional police personnel (COPS grants). All of this is
    very much needed, and we urge the Committee to give priority to funding
    for law enforcement in Indian country.
        At the same time, we are concerned that the Administration's
    initiative may not address our situation at all, since we have not been
    included in prior funding of law enforcement officials. In fact, the
    Bad River Band has no Tribal police force at all on our Reservation.
    The Tribe currently has only one available source of law enforcement
    personnel. Under an agreement with Ashland County, the Tribe
    contributes $57,000 per year for law enforcement services. In return,
    the County assigns a single county sheriff, who is supposed to provide
    law enforcement, but only on a part time basis. That sheriff does not
    even live on the Reservation, and he is only present on the Reservation
    during certain limited hours. On most days, after 3 P.M., during the
    very hours when most crimes are committed, there is no police personnel
    at all on the Reservation.
        During 1997 (the most recent year for which statistics are
    available), the sheriff responded to 439 calls on the Reservation. We
    need Tribal police on the Reservation--both to provide a visible
    presence as a deterrent and to respond to crimes that do occur. But
    general increases in law enforcement funding do not help us if none of
    the money is directed to our needs. To establish a minimum primary law
    enforcement presence the Tribe requests an earmark of $125,000 to hire,
    train and equip two tribal police officers.
                                   education
        Mashkisibi School. At Bad River, we have taken the initiative to
    address the needs of those children who have had difficulties in the
    public school setting--by establishing the Mashkisibi School, an
    alternative school for grades 9-12. The School, established in 1995,
    serves 20 to 30 students each year. These are students who would drop
    out if public school was their only option. The Mashkisibi School seeks
    to engage these students by integrating Ojibwa language and culture
    into all aspects of the curriculum, and by focusing on the practical
    impact of all areas of learning. The School has demonstrated
    considerable success, keeping these children in school, and helping
    them thrive. In its short time in existence, the School has had 22
    graduates, of whom 5 are now in college, 2 in the armed services and 9
    are otherwise employed. These are individuals who, without the
    availability of the Mashkisibi School, almost certainly would never
    have completed high school.
        While we have been able to begin the School on a shoestring, to be
    able to survive, we will need federal support. To operate the school--
    providing salary to our fine staff--we need $135,000 for fiscal year
    2000. And, to have a proper facility for our School, we need $350,000.
    We recognize that there is currently a moratorium on new BIA funded
    schools. But, in this case, where the Band has stepped in to educate a
    segment of the student population that was not otherwise receiving the
    services needed to keep them in school, an exception should be made. We
    urge your support for the Mashkisibi School.
        Other Tribal Education programs. The Band runs a Higher Education
    Grant Program--to provide scholarships to needy tribal members to
    attend college. While this is vital to the future of the Tribe, with
    current funding, we have been able to meet the need of only 72 percent
    of our students. The President's budget calls for a reduction of over
    $919,000 in the Higher Education Grant Program, compared with last
    year's level. This reduction, which we oppose, would further limit the
    number of tribal members who will be able to advance their education
    and return to the Reservation with skills to enhance the quality of
    life in our communities.
        The Band also runs an Adult Vocational Training Program, which
    provides grant funds for vocational training, and a Direct Employment
    Assistance Program, which provides assistance to tribal members to meet
    basic needs as they begin employment. Increases of at least 25 percent
    are needed in both of these worthy programs. The Johnson-O'Malley
    program is a key to the success of many of our students in the public
    school system. This program provides needed counseling and support
    services--and study skills training--to about 490 students. This year,
    the President is proposing to cut JOM again--this time by $611,000. We
    urge Congress to reject such a cut, and restore full funding for the
    JOM program.
                          natural resources management
        Our natural resources are key to our cultural and economic survival
    as a people. Wild rice, deer and walleye are central to our lives, and
    subsistence use of these resources is widespread and increasing. Proper
    management and enforcement efforts are more critical than ever to
    preserve the integrity of our Treaty rights and resources for members
    of the Band. We face population growth on the Reservation and in
    surrounding communities, increased environmental threats and ever-
    increasing equipment, supply and personnel costs. Despite these
    pressures, we have had no increase in our Tribal Management and
    Development Program (formerly called Fish and Game) for several years.
    To keep pace, and to provide the kind of enforcement and management
    that are necessary to protect our resources for future generations, we
    request an additional $300,000 for fiscal year 2000. We also support
    full funding for the Circle of Flight program and BIA Fish Hatchery
    Maintenance.
                               land consolidation
        We are very pleased that Bad River was selected to participate in
    the Land Consolidation Pilot Project established under last year's
    Omnibus Appropriations Act. At the same time, we recommend that the
    bill language on the pilot project be amended to provide that the
    participating tribes have the right to determine how best to use the
    funds to address the problems of fractionation.
        At Bad River, the United States allotted about 97 percent of our
    Reservation lands. The legacy of allotment is a Reservation that is
    badly checkerboarded, in a manner that creates a jurisdictional
    nightmare. To give you a sense of the problem, there are more than
    30,000 interests in trust lands on our Reservation of less than 2
    percent. Effective management and use of lands that are so badly
    fractionated is essentially impossible. Fractionated land ownership
    significantly impedes economic development of our Reservation land
    base.
        We supported enactment of a pilot program to assist tribes in
    purchasing fractionated interests in trust lands. And, we were
    delighted to have been selected to participate. But, we have been
    disappointed in the way the BIA has determined it will proceed. The BIA
    has set up the pilot project in a manner that unduly limits the role of
    the tribes. We had expected the pilot project to provide needed funds
    directly to the participating tribes, to allow the tribes to determine
    and implement their own policies and priorities for addressing
    fractionation. For example, we expected we would be able to identify
    critical parcels that the Band would purchase from willing individual
    Indian sellers. But, rather than allowing the tribes to devise their
    own approaches, the BIA is controlling the process.
        According to the BIA, all that Bad River will receive under the
    pilot program is $8,000. That money is to be used by the Band to assist
    the BIA in notifying potential sellers of the program, and other
    administrative tasks. The BIA itself is retaining $250,000 for
    administrative costs. And, the BIA has mandated that only parcels of
    less than 2 percent interests may be purchased. The Band has no role at
    all in selecting which particular parcels or interests should be
    purchased to advance tribal conservation or economic development goals.
    If a critical parcel from the Band's perspective is a 3 percent
    interest, no purchase of that interest is possible, according to the
    BIA.
        We believe that the Land Consolidation Pilot Project can provide a
    real opportunity to begin to address the fractionation problem. But for
    the project to succeed, tribes must not be excluded from determining
    how best to address the problem locally. To assure a proper role for
    the tribes, we urge the Committee to amend the bill language to provide
    that tribes may contract for the pilot project under Public Law 93-638.
    Consistent with the policy of Self-Determination, we feel strongly that
    the tribes, not the BIA, are best situated to make decisions on how to
    use Pilot Project funds to purchase fractionated interests and to help
    restore the Reservation land base.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Tom Maulson, Chairman, Lac du Flambeau Band of
                         Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Tom Maulson,
    and I am the Chairman of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
    Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am here to testify on behalf
    of the Tribal membership, to discuss their issues, concerns and needs.
        As a Chairman of a Sovereign Nation, it is my responsibility to
    emphasize that the United States is obligated by Treaties and Executive
    Orders to provide critically needed social, education, health and
    governmental services to all federally recognized Indian Nations in
    exchange for all the land and peace our forefathers provided. It is
    this special relationship between the Indian Nations and the United
    States that provides the proper understanding of my appearance here
    today, and our work with this Committee, the Congress and the
    Administration on fiscal year 2000 appropriations. With this in mind,
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to some specific health care,
    education, law enforcement and natural resource issues arising out of
    the President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
                                  health care
        Community Health Representatives. The CHR program provides a
    critical link between our people and their health care providers. Our
    CHR staff is trained and knowledgeable with regard to key medical needs
    of our people. They perform important functions including outreach
    patient education, administration of medication, and changing
    dressings. Our CHRs also provide services to new mothers dealing with
    post partum issues, child immunizations and other matters. In this, we
    have seen great success--as our child immunization rate at Lac du
    Flambeau is now 91-94 percent.
        In addition, our CHRs have earned the respect and trust of the
    members of our community. While many of our people, especially the
    elderly, are often reluctant to address medical problems, our CHRs are
    very effective in seeing that our people access proper health care.
    Without CHRs many of our people simply would not seek or obtain needed
    medical care. We strongly urge the Committee to reject the
    Administration's proposed $5 million reduction, and to restore full
    funding to the CHR program.
        Physician pay. Another key health issue is physician pay. At Lac du
    Flambeau, we have seen the difference retaining quality doctors can
    make. In the last year, for example, we have succeeded in hiring a
    woman physician, with family practice and OB experience. This
    physician, who is from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe, is also a
    graduate from the INMED program at the University of North Dakota. This
    physician's manner and expertise have restored the faith of many of our
    people in the medical care we provide at our clinic.
        While the system has worked in providing us with this fine
    physician, we are concerned that we may be unable to retain her over
    time, unless we can provide her with adequate pay. Among other things,
    our physician, like most young doctors, has substantial loans from
    medical school which she must repay. Unless we can help her and others
    address their loan repayment costs, we run the risk of losing the best
    available doctors to the private sector. For this reason, we are
    extremely concerned that the President's budget calls for $5.9 million
    less than would be required merely to pay mandatory increases under the
    Pay Act. We urge the Committee to redress this and provide full funding
    for physician pay. This will protect the government's investment in
    Indian doctors, and will help tribes like Lac du Flambeau recruit and
    retain the quality doctors our people need and deserve.
                                indian education
        I am encouraged by the fact that education is a primary focus of
    the President's budget. Educating the Band's future leaders, educators,
    health care providers, natural resource specialists, and administrators
    is one of the top priorities of ours as well. At the Lac du Flambeau
    Public School, our student population is 95 percent Native American,
    yet less than 2 percent of the teaching staff is Native American. The
    effort to recruit Indian teachers, the Band feels, is a priority. The
    President requests $10 million, to recruit and train 1,000 new Indian
    teachers, to serve in public school districts with high concentrations
    of Indian children. We recommend that the recruitment and training
    program be flexible enough to allow applicants to be trained by the
    local educational agencies and serve as interns in the schools they
    will be teaching. In addition, we urge the President and Congress to
    make this an ongoing educational initiative--one year is simply not
    enough to make up the deficits we face.
        The Band believes that the more time our children are in school the
    better chance they will be successful. The budget proposes $600 million
    to enhance after school and summer school programs across the country.
    The Band requests that $100 million of this amount be set aside for
    Indian Country.
                             tribal law enforcement
        In 1998, the Tribal Police Department logged 25,000 man hours
    answering 4,515 complaints. Our 11 member Police Department consists of
    10 full time officers and 1 administrator responding to calls ranging
    from domestic violence to juvenile cases including runaways, burglary,
    fraud, battery and vandalism. The officers have issued 650 citations
    for underage drinking, truancy, curfew and traffic violations, to name
    a few. The work load for the Tribal Police Department has also
    increased dramatically, since a Tribal/State/County Agreement has been
    enacted making it imperative to enforce all laws, codes and ordinances
    24 hour per day. The Tribal Police not only respond to tribal
    complaints but also provide services to the non-Indian community. Our
    Police Department also aids surrounding community police departments
    (Oneida and Iron County Sheriffs and Woodruff, Minocqua and Eagle River
    Police Departments).
        Currently, our budget for Law Enforcement is $220,300, but the
    Band's need is $550,000. To address this shortfall, the Band requests
    an increase of $329,700. We urge you to support the President's
    proposed budget which seeks a $20 million increase for BIA/Tribal law
    enforcement programs and $124 million within the Department of Justice
    budget for targeted law enforcement programs such construction of jails
    and retention centers and the COPS Grants Program.
                               natural resources
        In past testimony, I have emphasized that the natural resources of
    the Lac du Flambeau Band are our most valuable and significant asset--
    apart from our children and elders. Our natural resources provide the
    people with cultural, spiritual, subsistence, social and economic
    opportunities. Our Reservation is located in the heart of Wisconsin's
    tourism and sportfishing region. Tourism and related industries provide
    a livelihood for Indians and non-Indians alike. The land, the water,
    the air and all the animals and plants that live along with us on this
    land, help make us what we are as a people. We need adequate funding to
    fulfill our responsibilities to keep these resources clean and
    available for the generations to come.
        Wildlife and Parks. The Band has a very comprehensive Natural
    Resources Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in
    natural resource and land management. Our activities include raising
    fish for stocking, conservation law enforcement, collecting data on
    water and air quality, developing well head protection plans,
    conducting wildlife surveys, administering timber stand improvement
    projects and more on the 92,000 acre reservation. We urge this
    Committee to increase the Wildlife and Parks budget by $10 million
    nationwide and set aside $200,000 for Lac du Flambeau ($100,000 for
    Tribal Fish Hatchery Operations and $100,000 for Tribal Management and
    Development). The Wildlife and Parks budget has not increased since
    1990 and an increase will help maintain our current staff and critical
    natural resource programs.
        Circle of Flight. The Circle of Flight Program (also known as the
    Wetlands and Waterfowl Management Program) is dedicated to preserving
    and rehabilitating our Nation's wetlands and waterfowl populations.
    Wetlands are important in providing flood control, clean water and
    recreation. Waterfowl are an important source of food for tribal
    members and also support hunting opportunities for many up and down the
    Mississippi Flyway. Twenty reservations, the Great Lakes Indian Fish
    and Wildlife Commission, 1854 Authority and Fond du Lac Ceded
    Territory, with reservation and ceded territory land base of more than
    61 million acres, have identified $975,000 in funding needs for fiscal
    year 2000. We urge the Committee to continue to support this initiative
    and increase the President's budget by $398,000 for this very worthy
    program.
        Forestry. Within our reservation we have 45,000 acres of forested
    land that supports hunting and gathering opportunities for tribal
    members, as well as logging. Proper management of the forest is
    essential to sustain our subsistence lifestyle and to provide economic
    growth for the Band. The Forestry Program, consisting of 2 foresters
    and 2 technicians, conducts broad management activities including tree
    planting, prescribed burning, timber road design and maintenance,
    timber sale administration and integration with wildlife management. We
    strongly request that an additional $70,000 be earmarked for the Lac du
    Flambeau Forestry Program tosupport a program that has not received any
    new funding since fiscal year 1991.
        Tribal Historic Preservation. In 1996 the Band assumed Tribal
    Historic Preservation Office status (THPO) through the National
    Historic Preservation Act. We are one of 17 Tribes in the Nation to
    assume the duties of the State Historic Preservation Office for all
    lands within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. The
    President's budget includes a $2,595,000 for THPO'S. We urge the
    Committee to increase the budget to $10 million to address the needs of
    the tribes already in the program, and for additional tribes that are
    assuming Historic Preservation Office status. Also, the Committee
    should be made aware that there is a disparity in funding between State
    Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation
    Offices (THPO). For example the smallest SHPO receives $250,000 while
    the tribe with the largest land base, the Navajo Nation (with a land
    base larger than West Virginia's), only receives $89,000. The Band
    supports the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation
    Officers' request of $275,000 base funding for each THPO. Since the
    tribes by law have the same responsibilities as states in this regard,
    funding for tribes should be sufficient to enable tribes to meet those
    responsibilities.
        Land Consolidation. The Band supports the President's request for
    $10 million for the Land Consolidation Project but would respectfully
    request that the tribes be authorized to administer the project through
    a Public Law 93-638 contract. The tribes, not the BIA, should determine
    how best to address the problems of fractionation of trust lands. The
    Band currently is participating in the Pilot Project. To fully
    implement this project, an increase of $60,000 to support the Land
    Management Department is requested.
                great lakes indian fish and wildlife commission
        The Band supports the President's request of $3.56 million for the
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, as well as the
    Commission's additional request of $206,000 for radio replacement and
    to implement the U. S. Forest Service Memorandum of Understanding. The
    requested funds are essential for implementing the Band's off
    reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights in the ceded
    territories.
                             contract support costs
        Contract support is the final issue I would like to discuss. The
    President's TPA budget includes $121,338,000 for Contact Support which
    is an increase of $6,109,000 over last year's level. But even the BIA
    admits that this will only meet up to 84 percent of the total contract
    support needs in Indian Country. For the Self-Determination policy to
    work as Congress has envisioned and mandated, full contract support
    costs must be provided to tribes in connection with programs they
    administer. The Band urges Congress to fully fund contract support.
        Thank you. Miigwetch.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Spike Bighorn, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
                      of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
                          tribal priority allocations
        The Tribal Priority Allocations system is intended to give tribes
    an additional measure of flexibility in determining how to use
    available funds to best meet local needs. The Administration has
    requested an increase of $36.3 million for programs under TPA. While we
    support this request it would still fall far short of allowing the Fort
    Peck Tribes to meet the needs of our people in key areas including,
    education, agriculture and tribal courts. We urge the Committee to do
    all it can to increase TPA above the level requested by the President.
    Education ($983,000)
        We urge the Committee to support the education needs of Indian
    people. The President's budget requests $28.6 million for scholarships
    for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools, a
    decrease of $919,000 from last year. Obtaining a degree in higher
    education--particularly for those individuals from families that have
    not previously sent anyone to college--takes courage and often
    considerable personal sacrifice. We believe it is our responsibility to
    support the efforts of our people to attend college. The Tribes provide
    scholarship funds available through the BIA program. However, the
    current levels of funding are already far too inadequate. For example,
    this year the Tribes have identified 230 students who are eligible for
    scholarship benefits for higher education but who cannot be served
    because of lack of funding. The BIA itself reports that the level of
    unmet requests for scholarships nationwide has increased steadily over
    the last three years and currently stands at an estimated $26.6
    million. The decrease in funding will eliminate the opportunity of
    higher education for many tribal members. This is tragic, as it
    diminishes the number of educated Tribal members who would return to
    our communities to work with our youth, our elders and otherwise
    enhance the well-being of the Tribes. Furthermore, education is key in
    moving people off of welfare and into the workforce.
        We are also disappointed that the BIA budget request of $18.08
    million for the Johnson O'Malley program is $600,000 less than the
    fiscal year 1999 amount as it reduces even more the already meager
    resources provided to support culturally relevant education for Indian
    students attending public schools. We estimate that the Johnson
    O'Malley Program is currently underfunded by an $974,000 at Fort Peck.
        The Tribes request $983,000 to meet the funding needs of the
    Tribes' Education Department. This request is consistent with past
    funding levels, but we emphasize that, with a total estimated need of
    $2,467,900, this amount is adequate to meet only about 25 percent of
    total education needs for tribal members on the Reservation. For
    example, the Tribes have identified 100 students eligible for the
    Tribes' adult vocational scholarships and 75 individuals eligible for
    the Tribes' employment assistance program who are not served due to a
    lack of funding.
    Water resources ($20,000)
        The Fort Peck Water Resources Department is charged with managing,
    conserving, developing, and protecting the water rights of the Fort
    Peck Tribes. To accomplish this mandate, the Tribes are conducting a
    feasibility study for the North Sprole Irrigation Project. This project
    will allow the Tribes to make beneficial use of their water rights and
    their land by building the necessary infrastructure to pump water from
    the Missouri River and irrigate 15,000 acres of farmland. Because this
    project would assist the Tribes in utilizing their natural resources
    and would provide employment to tribal members during all phases of its
    development, it is an important component of our overall plan for
    economic development. The Tribes request an additional $20,000 to fund
    the core functions of our Water Resources Department.
    Agriculture ($1.291 million)
        The President's budget requests $19.347 million for BIA agriculture
    programs, an increase of $619,000 over last year. The Tribes support
    additional resources for agricultural needs, of which Fort Peck has
    many. The Fort Peck Tribes' Natural Resources Program recently took
    over management of the Fort Peck Agency's agriculture program under a
    self-determination contract. The Natural Resources program is
    responsible for natural resource management planning on approximately
    4,500 leases and for the administration of 92 range units, encompassing
    362,132 acres. Currently, the Tribes receive only $184,314 to
    administer the program which pays only existing staff and vehicle
    support and maintenance--but provides no funds for essential range
    improvements or other key needs. Long-term underfunding of the
    agriculture program has created substantial need at Fort Peck for
    improvements.
        The Natural Resources Program requires $1,140,000 for range
    improvements. Currently, the 92 range units are underutilized due to
    the lack of water developments and cross fencing. These funds are
    needed to build 200 miles of cross fences, drill 80 water wells, repair
    20 stock dams, and to develop 40 springs. Also, during the summer of
    1998, the area on the Reservation north of Brockton, Montana was hit
    with a flash flood, which breached the Colgan dam located on the Poplar
    River. Natural Resource Conservation Service engineers have conducted a
    site visit and put the preliminary cost estimate to repair the dam at
    $35,000. Finally, the Tribes sorely need a new range inventory.
    Currently we must rely on stocking rate data that is outdated and
    obsolete as it was generated in the last range inventory conducted in
    the 1970's. We estimate that it will cost approximately $116,000 per
    year for three years for the new range inventory. This amount includes
    funding for four additional FTE.
    Tribal courts
        The Fort Peck Tribes support the BIA's request for approximately
    $11.4 million for tribal courts and the DOJ's $5 million requested
    increase for the Indian Tribal Court Program within DOJ. Historically,
    tribal courts have been under funded and overworked. Despite the
    commitments of the BIA and DOJ to fund tribal courts, these amounts
    will only begin to address the historical deficiencies in funding.
    Critics of the tribal court system fail to understand that without
    adequate funding, tribal courts can not operate at their full
    potential. The Fort Peck Tribes urge this Committee to support even
    higher funding for tribal courts, to make up for the many years when
    the needs of these important tribal institutions were not met.
        law enforcement and detention facility operations and management
        The President's budget requests a $20 million increase over last
    year for BIA/tribal law enforcement for the second year of the
    President's Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. The President's
    budget also requests $124 million increase for the DOJ targeted law
    enforcement program. The Tribes strongly support the President's effort
    to enhance law enforcement in Indian country.
    Tribes' police department ($1.4 million)
        At Fort Peck alone, we have an estimated $1,400,908 million need in
    our Police Department though funding levels fall far below that amount.
    Our Reservation covers 6,000 square miles. We have a population of
    13,000 living on the Reservation. We currently have 15 officers on the
    force. We require about 44 officers to meet the President's goal of 2.9
    officers per 1000 persons and to provide adequate staffing in each of
    the Reservation law enforcement districts. Although our officers are
    well trained and dedicated, there are simply not enough of them to meet
    the day-to-day law enforcement needs of our community. Eleven
    dispatchers serve the Police Department, but we require at least 6
    additional persons to adequately serve the Reservation. We also require
    funding for a statistician. Documenting the number of accidents,
    highway deaths, arrests, and other statistics is essential to improving
    the quality and responsiveness of the Police Department. This job is
    currently performed by the police captain, a person who already has
    enormous responsibilities. Also, the Tribes have been recently required
    to meet additional requirements for conducting background checks of and
    providing training to law enforcement personnel. As a result, the
    Police Department requires an additional staff person to administer
    these new requirements.
        In addition, our Police Department is in desperate need of
    equipment. It currently has only 8 police cars. We would like to have
    at least 11 more cars--one per officer. Because our officers must cover
    a large geographic area, the police cars endure an enormous amount of
    wear and tear. This fact, coupled with the small number of cars,
    results in a dangerous situation where we lack adequate and reliable
    transportation for our officers. Our Department also needs additional
    equipment such as car radios, bulletproof vests, roll bars and
    protective shields.
        Last year Congress appropriated $20 million in new funds for the
    law enforcement budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. While
    approximately 56 percent of the law enforcement programs are operated
    by tribes pursuant to self-determination contracts and self-governance
    compacts, the Bureau allocated approximately 61 percent of these funds
    (excluding the $1.84 million allocated for training of officers of BIA
    and tribal programs) to BIA central office and BIA-run programs and
    only about 38 percent to the tribal programs. Fort Peck received none
    of these additional funds for law enforcement or corrections. The
    Tribes request the Committee to direct BIA to distribute all increases
    fairly among BIA and tribally-operated programs.
    Detention facility operations and management ($1.431 million)
        The BIA has indicated that it will allocate $4 million of the $20
    million additional law enforcement funds for corrections officers. We
    urge the Committee to direct the BIA to allocate a portion of those
    funds to meet the Tribes' need of $1,431,757 for staffing and equipment
    at the Tribes' two detention facilities.
        Last year through the DOJ, the Tribes received a grant to do the
    necessary upgrades and repairs to the Tribes' youth detention facility.
    While the facility will now be brought into compliance with applicable
    codes, there is still a significant need in staffing and operation and
    maintenance for this facility. We also need additional staffing at the
    adult facility. Adequate staffing is critical to the success of the
    Tribes' correction system. Being understaffed grossly limits the
    ability to ensure compliance with mandated detention standards, the
    security of the facility, and the safety of the inmates, staff, and
    visitors. It also results in increased employee workloads which in turn
    causes high turnover, low staff morale, and poor facility maintenance.
    Without adequate staffing we are unable to provide inmate programs
    which contributes to an abnormally high recidivism rate. Moreover,
    understaffing can increase the risk of litigation arising out of living
    conditions in the facility.
                             indian health service
        The President's budget requests a total of $2.8 billion for overall
    IHS services and construction. This is a $170 million increase over the
    fiscal year 1999 level, which makes a significant improvement over the
    President's request last year. The health indicators in Indian
    communities consistently demonstrate higher infant mortality, teenage
    suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease rates among
    Indian people when compared with other minorities and the general
    American population. Unfortunately, current levels of IHS funding to
    Indian communities fail to meet health cost inflation rates from year
    to year. Yet, money directed to health care, especially preventative
    care, such as routine checkups and health education, clearly improves
    the quality of life and helps avoid more expensive health care costs in
    the future. The increase in the President's budget is a modest step
    toward improving long-term health care in Indian country but falls far
    short of adequately addressing the substantial unmet health needs of
    Indians.
                                tribal colleges
        We support the Administration's request of $31.311 million for
    tribal colleges which is a $7 million increase over last year. This
    request is consistent with the President's Executive Order on Tribal
    Colleges, which supported enhancing federal support to tribal colleges
    and universities nationwide. The twenty-six tribal colleges are
    important institutions to remote tribal communities. On our
    Reservation, we operate the Fort Peck Tribal College, a fully
    accredited institution, offering Associate Degrees in arts, science and
    applied sciences. We also offer a vocational certificate for our
    students. We have a current enrollment of 356 students. In 1998,
    thirty-one of our students graduated.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the Fond du Lac Band of
    Lake Superior Chippewa would like to thank you for this opportunity to
    present our testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the
    Department of Interior and Related Agencies.
        The Fond du Lac Band occupies a Reservation in north-eastern
    Minnesota. The Fond du Lac Reservation was established by Treaty with
    the United States on September 30, 1854 and encompasses approximately
    110,000 acres of land that the Band occupied from time immemorial.
    There are currently about 3,350 members of the Fond du Lac Band, of
    this \2/3\ live on the Reservation.
    fond du lac ojibway school--$14.316 million for new school construction
        The Band strongly supports the Administration's request of $14.316
    million for construction of the Fond du Lac Ojibway School. Funding for
    construction of this facility is desperately needed. We are ready to
    begin construction as soon as the funds are appropriated.
        The existing Ojibway School is a grant school under the Tribally
    Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-297, Title V, Part B;
    the ``Tribally Controlled Schools Act''). The School serves
    approximately 382 children in grades K-12. The existing buildings are
    very old and decrepit. We have had to use four temporary portable
    buildings to house the Middle School (Grades 6-8) and a library. These
    buildings are in violation both of applicable building codes and BIA
    space guidelines. The 1992 BIA Construction Validation Report stated
    that, ``The building poses a clear and immediate danger to its
    occupants. To not replace the facility could be construed as negligence
    in the event a fire occurred. Any attempt to continue to use this
    facility on other than a short-term interim basis, is imprudent.''
        We have equally serious problems with the buildings for the primary
    school. As a result of continual spring flooding of the main building's
    basement, a septic tank system's back-up that flooded the pre-
    kindergarten classroom's restroom, and leaking roofs, the primary
    school buildings are contaminated with high levels of fungal growth.
    This growth has caused significant health problems for our students and
    our teachers. The overall condition of the school is so poor that the
    school was placed on an Accredited Warned Status by the North Central
    Association of Schools in April, 1995.
        Notwithstanding these facility handicaps, the school has been able
    to provide high quality education to the students it is able to admit.
    The Fond du Lac Community, School Board, Reservation Business
    Committee, Education Administration and Staff have continually sought
    to improve Indian Education since the inception of the Ojibway School.
    The involvement of the community has been instrumental to the existence
    of the school. With the help of tribal, state and federal programs, the
    Ojibway School has evolved into a leader in tribal education.
        Nevertheless, children cannot strive to be the best if they are in
    an environment that threatens their health. Fond du Lac children have
    the right to go to school in a place where they can learn and grow to
    become whatever their hearts desire them to be. However, right now they
    are going to a school where their health is threatened and their safety
    is at risk.
        The Administration has requested the dollars to complete the
    construction of this school by June 2000. There is no reason why Fond
    du Lac school children should continue to be at risk. We urge this
    Committee to support the Administration's request and include the $14.3
    million necessary to complete the construction of the Fond du Lac
    Ojibway School in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations bill.
        Additional Education Program Needs.--The Band strongly supports the
    Administration's request for Indian Education programs including:
    $319.890 million on for the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP);
    $38.8 million for Student Transportation; and the $79 million for
    Facilities Operation and Maintenance. This funding is necessary to
    ensure that the 185 BIA and tribal schools throughout the country will
    be able to meet the performance goals set out by the President's Call
    for Action for American Education in the 21st Century. The fate of
    Indian people in the 21st Century rests with the education and success
    our children. Thus, it is critical that this Congress support the
    requested funding for school operations.
    law enforcement--$350,000 for law enforcement officers and $100,000 for
                                   equipment
        In 1997 the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in which it
    held that certain traffic regulations including speeding, driving
    without a license, and driving without insurance are ``civil-
    regulatory'' in nature and under Public Law 280 unenforceable by state
    police officers on the Reservation. The ruling, known as the Stone
    decision, left a jurisdictional void with regard to law enforcement on
    roads within Indian Reservations within the State. The Fond du Lac Band
    has undertaken to fill this void by establishing our own Tribal police
    force. In addition, last year the Fond du Lac Band worked with the
    local law enforcement agencies and entered into a cross-deputization
    agreement to ensure the maximum amount of law enforcement services for
    the Fond du Lac Reservation and its citizens. However, because we have
    limited financial resources, we have significant unmet needs in this
    area. At Fond du Lac, we need $350,000 for police officers and staff
    and $100,000 for equipment to adequately ensure the safety of the
    Reservation population.
        We strongly support the Administration's $144 million request of
    additional funding for the Indian County law enforcement Initiative.
    However, we are concerned that the BIA does not intend to provide
    tribes located in Public Law 280 States with any of the additional $20
    million earmarked within the BIA law enforcement program. In light of
    the Stone decision, we ask this Committee to direct the BIA to change
    its policy as to tribal police departments located in Public Law 280
    states.
        In addition to the requested funding for more police officers in
    Indian country, we support the Administration's request to support the
    other components of our justice system, in particular the tribal
    courts. We support the $13.6 million request in the BIA's budget for
    tribal courts and the $5 million in the Department of Justice's budget
    to continue funding for the DOJ's Tribal Courts Initiative.
                      natural resource protection programs
    Off-reservation resource protection needs--$200,000
        Under Treaties with the United States made in 1837 and 1854, the
    Fond du Lac Band reserved rights to hunt, fish and gather rights on the
    lands that the Band ceded to the United States. The Band's rights under
    these treaties have been recognized and upheld by the federal courts--
    most recently the United States Supreme Court. On March 24, 1999, the
    Supreme Court issued a decision expressly reaffirming the Chippewas'
    hunting and fishing rights in the 1837 Ceded Territory.
        Under well-established law, in exercising these off-reservation
    treaty rights, the Band must also take steps to ensure proper use and
    management of the natural resources. As to the 1837 Ceded Territory,
    this means the Fond du Lac Band is responsible for Fond du Lac Band
    members' hunting, fishing and gathering activities over approximately
    3,000,000 acres of land. The Band has adopted a code and resource
    management plans to protect the exercise of treaty reserved rights and
    the resources, and these plans have been approved by the federal court.
    The Band, however, needs to ensure that it can sufficiently staff this
    work--which requires the assistance of game wardens, fish and wildlife
    biologists, technicians, and related equipment. To do this, we are
    seeking an additional $200,000 to be added to the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs base budget and earmarked for Fond du Lac and the 1837 Ceded
    Territory.
    On-reservation needs--$135,000
        It is essential that the Band properly manage its resources in
    order to meet the demand of an increasing population. Established by
    the Treaty of 1854 with the United States, the home of the Band is
    110,000 acres in northeastern Minnesota. The waters, wildlife, wild
    rice, and forest resources of our Reservation are vitally important to
    the members of the Band, as these resources provide the foundation of
    our culture, subsistence, employment, and recreation. The Fond du Lac
    Reservation includes some 3,200 acres of lakes, 1,900 acres of wild
    rice lakes and associated wetlands, 66 miles of cool water streams, and
    17,500 acres of forest. The increasing resident population is placing
    all resources under great stress.
        The loss of wild rice lakes and wildlife habitat, and the decline
    of forest biodiversity are of great concern to the Band. Therefore, we
    are seeking an additional $135,000 for our natural resources and
    forestry program to enable us to address the challenges we face in this
    critical area. The main area of concern is the Aquatic Resource
    Protection and Restoration. It is imperative that we continue to
    protect these resources for the future generations on Fond du Lac by
    the implementation of anti-degradation monitoring program with emphasis
    on mitigation of contaminants.
                                   conclusion
        The needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian Country remain
    massive. Your support to preserve the current BIA funding request is
    critical to maintain current program levels. Your consideration for our
    additional funding requests will enable us to improve the delivery of
    services to Band members and help ensure that all citizens within the
    8.5 million acres in central and northeastern Minnesota enjoy adequate
    protection of all resources. Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Larry Ivanoff, Chairman, Alaska Native Tribal
                               Health Consortium
        The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, based in Anchorage, is
    the newest tribal health organization in Alaska, and the largest tribal
    health organization in the United States of America.
        We are a statewide non-profit consortium of Alaska Native tribes
    and tribal health organizations, operating as a co-signer to the Alaska
    Tribal Health Compact, and responsible for management of the statewide
    health service programs formerly provided by the Alaska Area Native
    Health Service. Our responsibilities include management of area-wide
    tribal support services, area-wide environmental health and engineering
    functions, and the Alaska Native Medical Center. Our fiscal year 1999
    anticipated revenue from the Indian Health Service is approximately
    $100 million, and from all sources is approximately $150 million. Our
    service area includes approximately 105,000 Alaska Natives and American
    Indians.
        From our perspective, it is essential that the United States
    Congress apply a small portion of the government's budget surplus to
    address the long-standing deficiencies in the operating and capital
    budget of the Indian Health Service, beginning in fiscal year 2000. We
    join our sister organization, the Alaska Native Health Board, in
    requesting that the I.H.S. recurring budget be increased by 20 percent
    in the coming fiscal year.
        We note that the Department of Health and Human Service's fiscal
    year 2000 request to the Office of Management and Budget would have
    provided a 17 percent increase for the agency. While the
    Administration's formal request to Congress reflects only a 7.6 percent
    increase for fiscal year 2000, we acknowledge that this is the most
    significant increase proposed in many years. These requests are well-
    justified and warrant serious Congressional consideration.
        Nationally, it is well-recognized and documented that the Indian
    Health Service budget only addresses between 50-60 percent of the
    health service needs of the I.H.S. beneficiaries, and that Alaska
    Natives and American Indians who live outside of I.H.S. service areas
    are served at a significantly lower level. The overall Indian Health
    Service budget levels must address considerations for built-in costs
    such as federal/tribal employee pay increases, inflation in medical
    services, increased costs of medical technology, and population
    increases. Failure to provide for these costs means that the real
    appropriations levels for Indian Health Service and tribal health
    programs are gradually reduced from already inadequate levels.
        There are several specific health conditions and program areas
    which warrant special consideration and attention in the fiscal year
    2000 appropriations process:
        Sanitation Facilities Construction.--While funding from all federal
    and state sources has increased overall for water and sanitation
    projects needed in Alaska Native villages, it is essential to maintain
    or increase the Indian Health Service contribution in this area over
    the next ten years. More than 100 rural communities have inadequate
    sanitation services.
        Health Facilities.--Even though Alaska's high-profile projects have
    been addressed (Alaska Native Medical Center and Maniilaq Medical
    Center) in recent years, there remain several rural Alaskan hospitals
    and health centers that require replacement on an urgent or high prior
    ity basis. These include the St. Paul Health Center, the Metlakatla
    Health Center, and the Barrow Hospital. Continued Congressional support
    for projects on the I.H.S. facilities priority list is essential.
        Patient Travel.--Tribal health providers in Alaska continue to face
    significant shortfalls in their ability to provide financial assistance
    to allow Alaska Natives who live in remote isolated communities to
    obtain access to basic primary and specialty medical services. We
    endorse the Alaska Native Health Board's proposal for an earmarked
    increase of $10 million for Alaska Native patient travel support.
        Behavioral health services.--Over half of the 180 Alaska Native
    villages do not have community-based mental health or substance abuse
    treatment services. In most communities services are available only
    from itinerant professionals on an infrequent basis or through
    referrals to urban-based programs. There is growing concern for
    prevention and treatment services for inhalant abusers in rural Alaska.
        Maternal/child and elderly services.--Our epidemiologists are
    advising that, due to demographic changes, our requirements for
    maternal/pediatric services are likely to increase between 25-30
    percent in the next five years, outstripping the current capacity of
    our hospitals and primary health care centers. Similarly, demands for
    medical services for Alaska Native elderly will also increase between
    25-30 percent over the next five years.
        Cancer prevention and treatment.--Unfortunately, both behavioral
    and environmental factors are resulting in significant increases in
    cancer rates among Alaska Natives statewide. It is essential that
    prevention, screening, and treatment services all be enhanced by tribal
    health providers in Alaska.
        Telehealth services.--Initial funding was approved by Congress in
    the fiscal year 1999 I.H.S. budget for the first year actiities of the
    Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network, a four-year $28 million
    project designed to interconnect all Alaska Native health care
    locations, Veterans Administration health sites, military health sites,
    and State public health nursing sites with telemedicine capabilities.
    Continuing support of Congress for the second and subsequent years for
    this project is essential.
        Community Health Representative services--We are concerned that the
    Administration has proposed a reduction of $5 million in the CHR
    services appropriation. Over 100 CHR's in Alaska provide critical
    direct patient services and support for primary care operations. We
    urge the Committee to maintain current levels of appropriations for
    this program.
        In addition to these health services concerns, the Alaska Native
    Tribal Health Consortium shares with most other tribal health providers
    a serious concern that Congress this year address the issue of
    providing adequate tribal contract support cost funding.
        The Consortium has assumed responsibility for managing a $100
    million Indian Health Service program, and has determined a contract
    support requirement of approximately $15 million, of which $3 million
    is for start-up costs. As of this date we are managing this agreement
    with no contract support; our current negotiations with the Indian
    Health Service for award of our fiscal year 1999 allocation will at
    best only meet 70 percent of our full contract support requirement.
    These funds are essential to support our administrative infrastructure,
    including such vital functions as board operations, legal services,
    audit services, strategic planning activities, employee benefits,
    information systems, financial management systems, etc.
        We understand that the total national contract support cost
    shortfall is approximately $103 million. We encourage your attention to
    upcoming reports from the General Accounting Office, an I.H.S.
    workgroup, and an workgroup organized by the National Congress of
    American Indians; these reports will provide the full scenario
    concerning tribal contract support requirements and, hopefully,
    solutions to this serious matter.
        Finally we would like to take this opportunity to address several
    related matters relevant to the long-term viability of the Indian
    Health Service and tribal health programs nationally.
        First, Congress must soon attend to the reauthorization of Public
    Law 94-437, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which expires in
    September, 2000. This act provides essential authorities for most of
    our health initiatives. Alaska Native tribes and tribal health
    organizations are prepared to offer our resources in support of a
    comprehensive review and refinement of the act.
        Second, we urge your support for passage of HR 1167, Title V of the
    Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which will
    provide permanent authorization for Tribal Self-Governance. More than
    95 percent of Alaska Native tribes have been successful in implementing
    this initiative, and need Congress' assurance that this it will be
    supported on a long-term basis.
        Third, we urge action to extend the authorities provided through
    the Medicaid/Medicare Direct Reimbursement Demonstration project on a
    permanent basis to all tribal health providers nationally. The two
    tribal health organizations in Alaska who have participated in this
    project have found it to be beneficial in improving their financial
    operations.
        Finally, we urge action on legislation which will elevate the
    position of the Director of the Indian Health Service to the level of
    Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services.
    Such action will be consistent with the status of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs within the Department of Interior, and will ensure that the
    Indian Health Service has sufficient visibility and authority within
    the DHHS structure to achieve its mission.
        On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Alaska Native Tribal
    Health Consortium, I want to express my thanks to the members of the
    committee for the opportunity to present these concerns and
    recommendations, and for your commitment to supporting us in our vision
    to seek the highest possible health status for our people.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Jaime Pinkham, President, Intertribal Timber
                                    Council
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, I am Jaime Pinkham, President of the Intertribal
    Timber Council. I submit this testimony with the following requests
    regarding the Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal year 2000 Forestry
    program:
        (1) Add $1,950,000 to strengthen B.I.A. forest and woodland
    management planning capability.
        (2) Re-establish separate Forestry Program Elements in Non-
    Recurring Programs Resources Management.
        (3) Add $3 million for a new integrated resources management
    program line item.
        (4) Add $2 million to T.P.A. forestry activities for acreage
    increases, and
        (5) Note that $750,000 will be needed in each of fiscal years 2001
    and 2002 for the statutorily required Indian forest land assessment.
                     intertribal timber council background
        The Intertribal Timber Council (I.T.C.) is a twenty three year old
    organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
    organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.5
    million timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.4 million
    woodland acres that are under B.I.A. trust management. These lands are
    vitally important to their tribes. They provide habitat, cultural and
    spiritual sites, recreation and subsistence uses, and through
    commercial forestry, income for the tribes and jobs for their members.
    In Alaska, the forests of Native corporations and thousands of
    individual allotments are equally important to their owners. To all our
    membership, our forests and woodlands are essential to our physical,
    cultural, and economic well-being, and assuring their proper management
    is our foremost concern.
                     a crisis in forest management planning
        Mr. Chairman, today only 50 percent of the 5.6 million acres of
    tribal commercial timberlands in B.I.A. trust have current B.I.A.
    approved management plans. Yet B.I.A. approved management plans are
    required in statute and regulation for the harvest of Indian trust
    timber. A November 13, 1998 opinion from the Interior Solicitor's
    Office holds that ``Indian trust timber may not be harvested until an
    approved forest management plan has been established.'' This lack of
    approved plans threatens to withhold up to 340 million board feet of
    Indian trust timber from the market, potentially depriving tribes of
    millions of dollars of vitally needed revenue and hundreds of timber
    harvest related jobs. This situation is directly attributable to the
    B.I.A.'s lack of forest management planning capacity, a situation that
    is growing worse. While last year only 40 percent of the total 17
    million forest acres held in B.I.A. trust was covered by approved
    management plans, for this year it has fallen to just 35 percent.
        This decline has been caused by (1) substantially reduced Forestry
    T.P.A. funding, (2) a 7.5 percent increase in forest acres under trust
    management since 1992, (3) greatly increased complexity in management
    planning requirements, (4) no increase in Forest Management Inventory
    and Planning funds since fiscal year 1991, (5) inflationary erosion of
    purchasing power, and (6) since 1995, the reduction by roughly half of
    the B.I.A. Central and Area Office Forestry personnel who provide the
    planning expertise for the great majority of smaller forested
    reservations.
        To assure that the most basic rudiments of forest planning can be
    provided tribal forestlands, we request that $1,950,000 be added as
    follows to increase B.I.A.'s forest management capability: (A) add
    $300,000 to the Area Office Forestry budget for four additional
    professional foresters, add $150,000 to the Central Office Forestry
    budget for two additional professional foresters, (B) add $1 million to
    Forest Management Inventory and Planning, and (C) add $500,000 to
    Woodlands Management.
        We further request that $3 million be added for integrated resource
    management planning, and that $2 million be added directly to forestry
    activities in T.P.A. for management on increased forest trust acres.
        Each of these requests are discussed in further detail below, as is
    notification that $750,000 will be needed in each of fiscal years 2001
    and 2002 for the second independent assessment of Indian forests.
     add $300,000 to area forestry and $150,000 to central office forestry
                for additional professional forester capability
        Between fiscal year 1995 and today, B.I.A. Area Office Forestry
    personnel have been reduced from about 25 to about 15. In the same
    time, Central Office Forestry personnel have been reduced from about 19
    to about 10. Although reduced by roughly half from fiscal year 1995
    levels, these personnel are called upon to try to provide the
    professional and scientific expertise required for the successful trust
    planning and management of 17 million trust forest acres, most of which
    is on ninety eight reservations with economically viable forests
    throughout the United States. They are trying to do this at a time when
    forestlands are being recognized as never before for their biological
    significance and are also being intensely scrutinized and challenged on
    many aspects of their management, particularly on commercial
    utilization. Yet, with or without current plans, many tribes have
    little choice but to rely on the commercial use of their forest for at
    least some portion of essential tribal revenues.
        Of the 98 reservations with economically viable timberlands, many
    with smaller forests have no resident professional forestry personnel.
    And the great majority of the 98 reservations do not have personnel
    with the specialized expertise necessary for the development of a
    forest management plan. So those tasks, by necessity, fall upon the 15
    Area Forestry personnel spread throughout the B.I.A.'s twelve Area
    Offices (with several Area Offices harboring only a single forester),
    and upon the five foresters in the Central Office's Branch of Forest
    Resources Planning. It is, quite simply, well beyond any realistic
    expectation that such limited manpower can develop, review, and oversee
    implementation of management plans required by law for the 98
    reservations. In fact, the Branch of Forest Resources Planning has been
    forced by staff reductions to eliminate its general forest planning
    capability, and today principally provides only inventory analysis.
        Today's request for six additional personnel is an exceptionally
    modest plea to begin the restoration of the B.I.A. forest planning
    capability, because tribal forests, without plans, are open targets for
    mismanagement or legal challenge, either of which would diminish or
    interrupt what for many tribes is a critical source of essential
    operating revenue.
           add $1 million to forest management inventory and planning
        The Forest Management Inventory and Planning (FMI&P) budget covers
    the special one time projects needed in the renewal of forest
    management plans, such as remote sensing, mapping, inventory,
    management and implementation planning, and environmental assessments.
    Funds for these planning activities are not provided in a reservation's
    regular, on-going forestry budget, and the FMI&P funds meet those needs
    by rotating throughout reservations as their forest management plans
    need renewal. These funds are particularly needed for those smaller
    tribal forests where there are few or no forestry personnel. But since
    fiscal year 1991, when the program was increased to $1.5 million, these
    funds have basically remained flat (est. fiscal year 2000: $1.593
    million), failing to keep pace with inflation, the expanded land base,
    or planning's increasingly complex requirements.
        One particular example where additional FMI&P funding is needed is
    N.E.P.A. compliance. As of the end of fiscal year 1998, approximately
    57 percent of Category 1 forests (commercial forests of more than
    10,000 acres or a one million board foot A.A.C.) were without current
    environmental assessments, exposing those tribes to potentially dire
    consequences because B.I.A. is unable to comply with N.E.P.A.
    requirements. One of the larger tribal forests, that of the Navajo
    Nation, has been shut down for several years because of challenges to
    planning and N.E.P.A. assessments. For the smaller Category 2 forests
    (commercial forests of less than 10,000 acres and less than a one
    million board foot A.A.C.), only one third have environmental
    assessments.
        To begin to correct these deficiencies, the I.T.C. requests an
    FMI&P increase of $1 million for fiscal year 2000. B.I.A. estimates
    that FMI&P needs a $6.1 million annual increase.
                     add $500,000 for woodlands management
        We also request once again an increase of $500,000 for B.I.A.
    Woodlands Management, a doubling of the Administration's requested
    level. Mr. Chairman, in 1988, the B.I.A. Division of Forestry was
    formally assigned responsibility over the 9.4 million acres of tribal
    woodlands, including 4.4 million acres with commercial capability. At
    that time, B.I.A. data indicated $3 million was needed to properly
    initiate trust management of woodlands. $500,000 was provided, and has
    essentially stayed at that level ever since. Today, those funds cover
    the costs of woodlands managers at three Area Offices in the Southwest
    and fund a very limited number of on-the-ground projects. Only twenty
    seven percent of these woodlands have formal management plans, and only
    47 percent have rudimentary inventories. With little or no firm data,
    the three Area Woodlands Managers are relying on rough estimates and
    guesswork in trying to cover the millions of acres within their
    responsibility. Yet woodlands are intensively used across a wide range
    of activities, particularly for subsistence and small economic
    undertakings. An additional $500,000 would allow a greater degree of
    inventory and planning, a few additional personnel for increased
    oversight, and the implementation of an increased percentage of the
    annual backlog of submitted projects.
       re-establish separate forestry program elements in non-recurring
                         programs resources management
        Mr. Chairman, we also request that the three separate Forestry
    Program Elements in Non-Recurring Programs Resources Management be re-
    established. Those elements, Forest Development, Forest Management
    Inventory and Planning, and Woodlands Management, have been in place
    for years describing very necessary specific programs. In its fiscal
    year 1999 budget request, B.I.A. lumped then together into a single sum
    simply entitled ``Forestry''. We protested, noting that lumping such
    funds together greatly reduces the Bureau's accountability for those
    programs, and that allowing their expenditures to be shifted around at
    the Bureau's discretion effectively eliminates those programs as
    accountable, discreet activities. Further, the co-mingling of those
    funds presents confusion and difficulty in any 638 contracting or
    compacting that tribes might seek for those activities. When we
    objected to the Bureau, they noted that the combining of those funds
    was just to make the budget simpler. They acknowledged our concerns and
    said the separate Program Elements would be re-established for fiscal
    year 2000. Yet, in the fiscal year 2000 B.I.A. request, they remain
    combined. Accordingly, we ask that the Committee re-establish them.
             add $3 million for funds for a new i.r.m.p. line item
        Mr. Chairman, integrated resource management plans are considered
    essential in the current management of natural resources, and
    particularly in complex forest ecosystems. Everywhere you look, whether
    it is the forest industry, state forestry, or federal forestry on
    B.L.M. and U.S. Forest Service lands, you see an intense focus on
    comprehensive ecosystem management. Everywhere, that is, except the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. Despite a special trust obligation for tribal
    resources, the B.I.A. has only one person responsible for integrated
    resource management plans. Otherwise, it has no program and no funds
    for this standard modern management tool. Yet, among all Federal
    agencies, I.R.M.P.s are most appropriate, and needed, for tribal trust
    lands. The Indian people live on and from their land. And our
    population is rapidly expanding, placing our lands under increasing
    pressure. As noted in the 1994 Indian Forest Management Assessment Team
    (I.F.M.A.T.) report, tribes are progressive, dedicated stewards of our
    land, but the severely limited planning resources available to us are
    precluding options and flexibility. Moreover, with increased national
    attention to landscape-wide comprehensive management, the absence of
    tribal I.R.M.P.s will cause management blank spots in the broader
    fabric of surrounding land. B.I.A. has estimated an annual need of $15
    million over ten years for I.R.M.P.s for all tribes. And on Indian
    forestlands alone, the I.F.M.A.T. report noted that $94 million is
    needed annually to bring B.I.A. other-than-direct timber production
    management activities up to parity with the U.S. Forest Service. Yet,
    B.I.A. has next to nothing. Accordingly, we request the establishment
    of a new I.R.M.P. line item in Non-Recurring Programs, Resources
    Management, and that it be funded at $3 million to begin to address
    these shortcomings.
     add $2 million to t.p.a. for forestry activities for acreage increases
        Since fiscal year 1992, Indian forestland under trust management
    has increased from 15.9 million acres to 17 million acres today, a 7.5
    percent increase. Total Forestry funding in T.P.A., including Self-
    Governance transfers, has actually declined from $26.8 million in
    fiscal year 1992 to $26.7 million requested for fiscal year 2000,
    without factoring in any loss for inflation. To reflect the costs of
    these increased acres at the Agency level where the actual day-to-day
    management activities take place, the I.T.C. requests that the fiscal
    year 2000 budget for forest activities in Tribal Priority Allocations
    (estimated at $26,665,000 including Self-Governance) be increased by
    7.5 percent, or $1,999,875, with direction that the increase be
    distributed according to acreage increases. This request at least
    allows the current level of regular forestry funding to accommodate
    increased acres.
    note that $750,000 will be needed in each of fys 2001 and 2002 for the
               statutorily required indian forest land assessment
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, we wish to alert you that the B.I.A.'s
    fiscal years 2001 and 2002 budgets will each have to provide $750,000
    for the second independent assessment of Indian forest lands, which we
    roughly estimate will cost $1.5 million over the two years. The
    National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (Public Law 101-630)
    requires that the Interior Department provide for the assessment every
    ten years, starting with its November 28, 1990 enactment. After a one
    year lag for planning, the first assessment was commenced in fiscal
    year 1992 and the report was issued in November, 1993. Pursuant to the
    Act, the Secretary is to provide for the second assessment on the Act's
    tenth anniversary on November of 2000, which will be fiscal year 2001.
    While no action is necessary at this time, the assessment is
    exceptionally important in providing a comprehensive independent review
    of the status and management of Indian forestlands across time. It is,
    we believe, so important to the Indian trust beneficiaries that we want
    to bring it to your attention now, so that you will be aware of it.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Dee Ketchum, Chief, Tribal Council of the
                  Delaware Tribe of Indians, Bartlesville, OK
                                  introduction
        The Delaware Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized tribal
    government located in eastern Oklahoma, appreciates this opportunity to
    provide written testimony on fiscal year 2000 funding for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The Delaware
    Tribe provides this testimony to make three basic points.
        First, we want to thank the Congress for fully funding the ``new
    tribes'' account in fiscal year 1999. This had a direct and positive
    impact on our Tribe which received a share of this funding as a result
    of the BIA's 1996 reaffirmation of our Tribe's federally-recognized
    status. We've accomplished many things with our first two years of
    funding; we ask that you fund the full amount requested for the fiscal
    year 2000 ``new tribes'' account for our third of three years of
    funding.
        Second, we wish to thank the Congress for adopting language in the
    fiscal year 1999 appropriations act which removed a potential for
    confusion created by an fiscal year 1992 appropriations proviso that
    could have been interpreted to undermine our Tribe's authority to fully
    and efficiently administer federally-funded programs. As to the related
    Committee report language, the Delaware Tribe wishes to inform you of
    the efforts we have made in the past year to comply with the
    Committee's directives regarding the need to cooperatively develop,
    with two other Indian Tribes and the BIA, arrangements by which Federal
    funds are administered so as to avoid duplication of funding and
    services.
        And finally, the Delaware Tribe wants this Committee to understand
    how unyielding and counterproductive is the fiscal year 1999 moratorium
    the Congress placed on new contracts under Public Law 93-638, as
    amended, especially for a Tribe like Delaware which is poised to
    rebuild and regain the tribal infrastructure it once had.
                  background on the delaware tribe of indians
        The Delaware Tribe of Indians has had a long and rich history of
    relations with the United States. In 1778, the Delaware became the
    first tribe to be granted recognition by the United States. By 1866,
    most of the Delawares had moved from the northeastern U.S. to Kansas.
    In 1866 our ancestors signed a treaty providing for their removal to
    Oklahoma. Since 1866, the Delaware Tribe of Indians have continuously
    maintained an elected tribal government in Bartlesville, Oklahoma and
    engaged in direct, government-to-government relations with the United
    States. In the early 1970's, the Delaware became one of the first
    tribes to contract with the BIA and the Indian Health Service, assuming
    tribal administration of programs previously run by Federal
    bureaucrats.
        In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court expressly affirmed that the Delaware
    Tribe of Indians of eastern Oklahoma has `` . . . maintained a distinct
    group identity, and they are today, a federally recognized tribe.''
    Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73, 77 (1977).
    Nevertheless, in 1979, an acting BIA Deputy Commissioner issued a
    letter on behalf of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma purporting to end
    the Delaware Tribe of Indians' direct relationship with the United
    States. For the next 16 years, the BIA refused to resolve the confusion
    that its 1979 letter caused. That uncertainty ended in 1996 when, after
    careful legal review by its Office of the Solicitor, the Interior
    Department expressly reaffirmed the Delaware Tribe of Indians,
    Bartlesville, Oklahoma, as a federally-recognized Indian tribe. And the
    authority of the Delaware Tribe to administer some federally-funded
    programs was fully resolved by the Congress in the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations act.
                             ``new tribes'' funding
        We ask that you fully fund the Administration's request for ``new
    tribes'' funding in fiscal year 2000. While we are not a ``new'' tribe,
    our status has only recently been reaffirmed and we thus qualify for a
    third year of funding under this account. We have used our ``new
    tribes'' funding of approximately $160,000 per year to revise our
    existing tribal constitution, establish core governmental and
    programmatic control systems, and administer service programs for the
    benefit of our members. With these and other grants program funding,
    the Delaware Tribe has successfully established a Tribal Economic
    Development office, Tribal Grants and Contracts office, and the
    Delaware Child Care Development Project. The Tribe has been working
    closely with the city of Bartlesville and local industry to foster
    economic development activities that will boost our area's lagging
    economy.
     report of the delaware tribe's efforts to facilitate its provision of
                                direct services
        We are particularly grateful for the Congressional confirmation of
    the Delaware Tribe's authority to deal directly with the BIA to provide
    services to our tribal members under the Indian Self-Determination Act,
    Public Law 93-638, as amended. The accompanying report language
    directed that the BIA work with our Tribe as well as with the United
    Band of Keetoowah Indians and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to
    develop a plan to prevent an increase in the demand for additional
    funding, to avoid duplication of services, and to not lose cost
    efficiencies related to economies of scale as separate service delivery
    mechanisms are established among our three Tribes. In addition, the
    report asked the BIA to report by April 1, 1999 on a plan that will
    coordinate the identification of geographical areas in the areas
    occupied by our three Tribes which are eligible for trust land
    applications. We have not seen the BIA's report. However, we would
    like, first, to comment on the concerns of the Committee expressed
    above and, second, to provide the Committee with our own direct report
    on the activities we have taken as a Tribe in response to the
    Committee's directive.
        No Demand for Additional Funding if Delaware Provides Direct
    Services to its Members.--Because of several unique factors, we believe
    the process of establishing a separate service delivery system will
    not, in and of itself, create demand for additional funding. First, the
    Delaware Tribe proposes only to provide traditional federal Indian
    services to our own members. Currently, the Cherokee Nation has
    contracted with the BIA to provide certain federal services to all
    66,000 Indians, regardless of tribal affiliation, residing within a 14-
    county service area in Northeastern Oklahoma. Twenty years ago the
    Delaware Tribe established a five-county service area for its members,
    which lies within the 14-county area. We propose only to continue to
    provide services for our 2,450 members who reside in our five-county
    area. Our members comprise, at most, only 3.7 percent of the population
    served by Cherokee with BIA funds. At the point that Delaware chooses
    to exercise its right to contract with BIA to provide certain services
    to its own membership within that five-county area, the BIA would need
    only shift to Delaware a maximum of 3.7 percent of the funding now
    provided to the Cherokee Nation, whose funding agreement would be
    reduced by a corresponding amount. There would be no double funding nor
    any demand for additional funding. Even contract support costs would be
    roughly the same because the Cherokee Nation's demand would necessarily
    be reduced as corresponding contract support funding is provided to
    Delaware.
        No Duplication of Services If Delaware Provides Direct Services to
    Its Members.--Our Tribal service area has remained the same since the
    early 1970's. Since that time, the Tribe has successfully administered
    its own Housing Authority with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development funds, its own job training program (JTPA) with U.S.
    Department of Labor funds and several other federally-funded programs
    within its service area without any measurable negative impact upon, or
    overlap with, the benefits provided to other Indians in the same area
    by the Cherokee Nation. There is no evidence of any duplication of
    services as a result of our operation of these programs alongside
    similar programs operated by the Cherokee Nation. At the same time,
    however, we acknowledge the problem presented by the fact that the
    Cherokee Nation does not prohibit dual-enrollment of an Indian
    otherwise eligible for membership in both the Cherokee Nation and
    another Tribe such as ours. We thus understand the concern raised by
    the Committee and are working with the BIA to develop an administrative
    mechanism to ensure that no duplication of services occurs.
        No Cost Inefficiencies If Delaware Provides Direct Services to Its
    Members.--The Delaware Tribe has always recognized that health care is
    best delivered in a consolidated fashion. Because of basic economies of
    scale, we have no intention of pursuing a separate contract for IHS
    hospital funding. Our Delaware health needs are already severely
    underfunded and we are committed to maximizing every possible benefit
    from the limited health funding provided to Indians in our service
    area. At the same time, and based on the same principles, the Delaware
    Tribe has a continuing concern with the way the Cherokee Nation has
    been administering many of these programs. We believe that the Cherokee
    Nation operation is actually too large, with its huge size encouraging
    inefficiency rather than efficiency and permitting open discrimination
    in the provision of services. In recent years, we have heard public and
    private stories about nothing but waste, misappropriation, and poor
    judgment being exercised by the Cherokee Nation program managers and
    its government. The Cherokee Nation headquarters is located some two
    and a half hours from the Delaware Tribe's headquarters in
    Bartlesville, which fact greatly limits many Delawares ability to
    obtain services from the Cherokee Nation programs.
        Report of BIA and Inter-Tribal Planning.--Our Tribe has attempted
    to diligently work with the two other Tribes and the BIA as requested
    by the Committee in order to develop a plan responsive to the concerns
    of the Committee. More than one year ago, the Delaware Tribal Council
    traveled to the Cherokee Nation to meet with Cherokee representatives.
    At that time, the Delaware Tribe submitted a proposal to the Cherokee
    to settle the issues of funding administration and territorial
    jurisdiction. Within that proposal, the Delaware requested that the
    Cherokee agree that the Delaware be able to provide services to
    Delaware tribal members not otherwise enrolled with the Cherokee Nation
    who reside within the traditional five-county area. Further, the
    Delaware requested that the Cherokee agree that the Delaware should be
    able to exercise territorial jurisdiction over lands owned by the
    Delaware Tribe and its members, not otherwise enrolled with the
    Cherokee Nation, in a limited three-county area of Washington, Nowata,
    and Rogers. Within the three county area, it would be presumed that the
    Delaware Tribe and its members would also be eligible to take land into
    trust. The Delaware proposal clarified that at no time would the
    Delaware be providing services to Cherokee tribal members or other non-
    Delawares, and that the Delaware Tribe would never exercise
    jurisdiction over lands owned by the Cherokee Nation or any Cherokee
    tribal members or other non-Delaware Indians.
        In response, the Cherokee Tribal Council requested that the
    Delaware Tribe prepare a report on the federal programs that the
    Delaware intended to contract within the proposed service areas and the
    number of people to be served. The Cherokee also requested that the
    Delaware prepare a report of the lands owned by the Delaware Tribe and
    Delaware tribal members in the three-county area. We prepared and
    delivered these reports by July, 1998, with copies to the BIA Muskogee
    Area Office and to the Interior Department's Self-Governance Office. To
    date, the Cherokee Nation has failed to respond, comment upon, or even
    acknowledge receipt of these reports we prepared at their request.
    Further negotiations have not been possible given the internal strife
    that has overwhelmed the Cherokee Nation. We hope the Cherokee
    elections next month will lead to a new willingness and ability on the
    part of the Cherokee leadership to renew negotiations with the Delaware
    Tribe.
        Nevertheless, the Delaware Tribe has continued to respond to the
    Committee's directive by meeting with BIA Muskogee Area Office
    officials to develop proposals to provide services and identify a
    jurisdictional area for the Delaware Tribe. Most recently, the Delaware
    Tribe has adopted the Bureau's suggested process of affirmative
    19selection' by Delaware tribal members to receive services from the
    Delaware Tribe as opposed to the Cherokee Nation. The Delaware Tribe
    intends to utilize this 19selection' process in contracting a limited
    number of education programs for fiscal year 2000 until such time as
    the Tribe can implement a constitutional prohibition on dual
    enrollment. The Delaware Tribe is not aware of any objections that the
    Keetoowah might have with the Delaware proposals, consistent with the
    longstanding good-will that has existed between the Keetoowah Band and
    the Delaware Tribe. To our knowledge, the Keetoowah Band has never
    expressed any interest in providing federal services to Delaware
    members nor in exercising jurisdiction over Delaware members or our
    lands.
             temporary moratorium on self-determination contracting
        The Delaware Tribe has in recent years been making great progress,
    against equally great odds, to regain the operational status it
    possessed less than a generation ago. The primary purpose of the ``new
    tribes'' funds the Delaware Tribe has received is to develop procedures
    for the Tribe to be able to enter into contracts under the Indian Self
    Determination Act, Public Law 93-638, as amended. The temporary
    moratorium placed by Congress on new fiscal year 1999 contracts raises
    the specter of unintended, drastic consequences for a Tribe like
    Delaware which is poised to rebuild and regain the tribal
    infrastructure it once had. While the Delaware Tribe can certainly
    appreciate the concerns of the Committee that rising contract support
    costs pose a significant challenge, we believe a blanket moratorium
    generates more harm than good. We urge the Committee to not place a
    similar moratorium on new fiscal year 2000 contracts but instead focus
    its efforts on the development of a more precise and uniform way to
    project and manage contract support costs. The Delaware Tribe has
    worked hard to prepare ourselves to again directly serve our own
    people. A substantial investment has been made in our Tribe, by our
    members, by our leaders, by the BIA, and by the Congress. Extending the
    moratorium to fiscal year 2000 would waste these efforts. It would
    substantially set back the plans we have to dramatically improve
    services to our members within available appropriations. It would
    further legitimize and retrench the present service delivery system
    that is so cost inefficient and wasteful. The Delaware Tribe deserves
    better, and the opportunity to demonstrate its ability to do better for
    itself. Continuing the moratorium into fiscal year 2000 would force a
    halt to the progress achieved to date by the Tribe and frustrate its
    ability to pursue progress in future years. We urge the Committee to
    undertake a more narrowly targeted approach in its continuing efforts
    to manage contract support costs in fiscal year 2000.
                                   conclusion
        The Delaware Tribe is proud of our government-to-government
    relationship with the United States. We will jealously guard this
    relationship, as it is absolutely vital to our continuing existence.
    The Delaware Tribe is striving to run our tribal government and deliver
    tribal services in the most efficient manner possible. We offer this
    testimony in that spirit. Thank you for this opportunity.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Kenneth E. Quickel, Jr., President, Joslin
                                Diabetes Center
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony
    for the hearing record. As President and CEO of Joslin Diabetes Center,
    I would like to present the Committee with some facts about Joslin,
    diabetes in the US, and the status of Joslin's progress toward
    compliance with the directive in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations
    Act regarding ``cooperative efforts'' with the Indian Health Service.
        The purpose of this statement is to request $1 million for
    implementation of the cooperative effort between Joslin Diabetes Center
    and the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2000.
                             joslin diabetes center
        Joslin Diabetes Center is located in Boston, Massachusetts, and is
    the oldest and largest diabetes clinic and research facility in the
    world. Details on Joslin's accomplishments are attached in the fact
    sheet ``Joslin Diabetes Center''.
                                    diabetes
        Diabetes and the complications from diabetes are wrecking havoc on
    Americans, particularly the Native American population and other
    minorities, and now comprise one of the most expensive and damaging of
    the diseases that plague mankind. The far reaching aspects of this
    disease are discussed in the attachment ``Diabetes''.
                         fiscal year 1999 ihs directive
        The Statement of the Managers Accompanying the conference Agreement
    for fiscal year 1999 contained the following:

        ``2. Of the funds available to the IHS for diabetes programs, the
    Service should fund cooperative efforts with the Joslin Diabetes Clinic
    in Boston to non-invasively screen for undiagnosed diabetes and
    diabetic retinopathy in Indian communities. The Committees understand
    that such a program would be similar to programs the Joslin Clinic is
    conducting with the Department of Defense and the Veterans
    Administration and that the managers of existing diabetes programs
    within IHS have expressed an interest in working with Joslin.''

        To date, we have met with IHS officials several times. IHS
    representatives have traveled to Boston to tour our facility and meet
    with our physicians and research scientists. One of the visitors
    volunteered to undergo the non-invasive eye screening for diabetes, the
    heart of the Joslin Vision Network (JVN). Our report was that he had
    ``young eyes''.
        All of the contacts we have had have resulted in positive outcomes
    and have advanced us toward the point of compliance with the fiscal
    year 1999 directive of a cooperative effort. The Committee staff has
    assisted both IHS and Joslin in working toward the selection of a
    location and deployment of equipment and personnel to the site in the
    near term. Funds for the project have not yet been obligated, but we
    understand that there are efforts underway to identify funding sources
    in the current fiscal year.
        We are confident that we will be able to commence a joint project
    during the current fiscal year. The exchange of information concerning
    Joslin's specific medical protocol and how the JVN could best be
    utilized within the Indian Health Service system has been a necessary
    first step. Decisions and related factors on the selection of the most
    appropriate site for the initial deployment are now underway. When we
    have developed the jointly approved plan, we will brief the Committee
    on our proposal to comply with the Committee's directive for fiscal
    year 1999 cooperative effort between the Joslin Diabetes Center and the
    Indian Health Service.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, continuation of this cooperative effort for a full
    year will cost $1 million for the expenses of both the Indian Health
    Service and the Joslin Diabetes Center. We respectfully request that
    you carefully consider the potential program benefits from this modest
    investment for fiscal year 2000 funding.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to submit this statement for
    the hearing record.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Hon. George E. Bennett, Chairman, Grand Traverse
                Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan
        The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians is
    presenting this testimony to help guide the Committee in its
    consideration of the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. As a Self-Governance
    Tribe, our ability to continue to successfully administer federal
    programs is largely impacted by the budgetary process and our ability
    to inform Congress, in a government-to-government setting, of our
    views. While we cannot testify in person before this Committee, we send
    this written testimony to provide you with our views on the fiscal year
    2000 budget request for Tribal programs.
        We are a sovereign Indian Nation located in the Northwest corner of
    what is now the State of Michigan. Our people have resided in this
    place for many centuries and, as is our tradition, we send you
    greetings from our people. We provide this testimony with good thoughts
    and prayers that the Creator will bless the work of this Committee and
    that your actions will benefit the people of this country. We pray that
    you will hear the needs of Indian people and find answers to the needs
    as stated in this testimony.
              the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request
        The United States of America has been built on lands that were
    secured by Treaties from the Native people of this land. Those
    Treaties, the United States Constitution, over 5000 laws, Presidential
    executive directives, and many Supreme Court decisions evidence a
    unique relationship between Indian Tribes and the United States
    Government. No other group of people in this country has this unique
    relationship. This relationship provides for a Trust Responsibility
    owed by the United States to Indian Tribes. Each year the
    Administration requests funding for programming that is geared towards
    meeting the trust responsibility the United States owes to Indian
    Tribes and to Individual Indians.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget provides for an
    increase in both the Indian Health Service budget and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs budget. With respect to the requested $170.1 million
    increase in the Indian Health Service budget $144.6 million is for
    items such as personnel and pay-related cost increases, staffing at new
    facilities, initiatives for women's health and alcohol and substance
    abuse prevention and treatment, contract support funding and the Indian
    Health Care Improvement Fund. The remaining $25.5 million increase is
    for Indian Health Facilities. The Tribe generally supports all of the
    increases the Administration has requested for fiscal year 2000 for
    both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service and
    asks that this Committee view them favorably.
              remaining unmet health care needs in indian country
        The increases the Administration seeks for the Indian Health
    Service, while positive, simply are not sufficient to meet the needs on
    Indian Reservations across this country. To look at why these increases
    are insufficient, we only need to look at the last 20 years of Indian
    funding.
        In 1983, annual funding to Indian Nations was cut from $3.5 billion
    to $2.0 billion in the federal budget. Tribes were devastated and have
    never recovered from that severe cut. In 1988, the Senate Select
    Committee on Indian Affairs directed that a study be conducted of the
    federal budget. This study was intended to show that Indian Tribes were
    receiving a fair share of the United States budget. Instead, to the
    Committee's surprise, the report showed that there was $3,000 for every
    non-Indian in this country in the federal budget and $2,300 for every
    Indian. (See: report of Congressional Reporting Service, Library of
    Congress, Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Budget views and
    costs fiscal year 1989, March 1988.) Years later, this gap in funding
    still exists.
        This past month, we lost three of our members on our reservation.
    One was 41 years old, one was 47 years old and one was 55 years old.
    These are ages of death for third world countries, not the United
    States of America. All three of these people were taken much too early.
    It is time that this country provides health services to Native
    Americans at the same level as non-Indians. Federal statistics paint a
    thorough picture on the need for equitable funding. The most dramatic
    case involves the neglected health of Indian people. The infant
    mortality rate for Indian people is 15 per 1,000 lives--nearly double
    the average of the rest of the U.S. population. The alcoholism death
    rate for Indian people is 38.4 per 100,000 population--six times the
    rate for other races in this country. The diabetic mortality rate for
    Indian people is 31.7 per 100,000 compared to 11.9 for all other races.
        It is no coincidence that these trends have taken place as fewer
    medical professionals are available in comparison to a decade ago as
    the budget for Indian Health continues to be reduced in real dollars.
    In 1982, for example, there were 99.7 doctors for every 100,000
    Indians. By 1994, the rate of doctors dropped to 89.7. Similar
    reductions were seen in the number of nurses in Indian country.
    Meanwhile, during the same period, per capita annual expenditures
    through Indian Health Service was $1,153, which was nearly two-thirds
    lower than the rate of $3,111 for all other races in this country.
        This funding gap contributes to an already existing backlog of
    unmet health care needs for Indians. For example, the funding our Tribe
    receives from the Indian Health Service is only enough to meet 20
    percent of our health care needs. We attempt to cover the 80 percent
    shortfall by using Tribal revenues which would otherwise go to other
    pressing governmental needs, such as Housing, Water System, Sewage
    Treatment Plant, and Law Enforcement . Unfortunately, we simply cannot
    meet all of the health care needs of our membership.
        The fiscal year 2000 Budget request provides an increase of
    $170,100,000, which will allow the Indian Health Services budget to
    keep up with the services offered in the fiscal year 1999 Budget. This
    is not enough to make any gains into this under-funded program that is
    so important to the health of Indian people. The National Indian Health
    Board, after several years of work, developed a real dollar-assessment
    of the need for health services in Indian Country. The National Indian
    Health Board determined that an 8 billion-dollar budget is needed to
    meet the health needs of Indian people.
        The budget proposed for fiscal year 2000 is $2,412,387,000 which is
    far short of the need. While we realize the current budgetary climate
    makes it difficult to fund the actual need, we believe that a bold
    attempt to come closer to the needs budget can be accomplished by
    Congress. With only 25 per cent of the need for health service met
    through the budget, it makes Indian people the least funded for health
    services in this country.
        At a meeting of the National Congress of American Indians this
    winter we asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services about this
    issue. She told us that only Congress can dictate a change in this
    budget and she feels that Congress will not increase the Indian Health
    Service budget to meet these needs. We believe that answer is
    unacceptable to our children, to our elders, and to our membership who
    suffer from the lack of health services due to the shortage of funds in
    the Indian Health Service budget.
                                    closing
        We respectfully ask that this Committee recommend a one billion-
    dollar increase to the Indian Health Service budget for fiscal year
    2000. Additional funding is needed to provide for the unmet needs in
    Dental Health for both our children and our adults. Dentists who work
    on our children have told us that the long neglected dental care has
    created other health problems for our adults and they can see this
    continuing with our children. A full time dentist at the Tribe would
    allow for the wrap around health care needed by our membership. Funding
    is also needed for specific health programs such as diabetes and
    alcoholism, which create additional health problems when untreated.
    Prescription drug costs have continued to rise much faster than
    budgets. Physician and Hospital services are dramatically under-funded
    and being forced to managed care, with limited funding, means that the
    Tribe is often in the position of limiting health service dollars to
    emergency needs only. Additional funding is needed in each of these
    categories and the one billion-dollar increase would assist Tribes with
    these needs. While this increase would only meet a little over fifty
    per cent of the need for health services in Indian Country, it would
    provide sufficient funds to allow for progress to be made in the health
    care of Indian people. We leave you with good thoughts, and prayers for
    the work that you do for Indian people and all the people of this land.
    Thank you for providing us this opportunity to address these needs.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Rainwater-Sande, President,
                          Ketchikan Indian Corporation
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal
    year 2000 budget request for both the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    and for the Indian Health Service (IHS). Ketchikan Indian Corporation
    (KIC) is a federally-recognized tribal government created under the
    Indian Reorganization Act (I.R.A.). The KIC constitution was approved
    by the Secretary of the Interior in 1940. We currently have 4,162
    members, and our enrollment has been growing each month.
        In 1976, we were one of the first Indian Tribes to assume, under
    the newly enacted Public Law 93-638, the Tribal operation of programs
    run by the BIA. In 1993, KIC was one of several tribes in Alaska that
    first participated in the BIA Tribal Self Governance demonstration
    program. Since then, we have managed our BIA-funded programs with
    increased flexibility and an equal measure of increased accountability.
        In 1997, we achieved our goal of securing a Self Governance Compact
    with the IHS. We are now constructing a 35,000 square foot, five story
    health clinic totally financed through the operations of Ketchikan
    Indian Corporation. KIC has been able to maximize the beneficial impact
    of this federal funding at the local and community level through self-
    governance.
        Through self-governance, we have shifted the focus of our welfare-
    assistance programs more towards Tribal employment and training. It was
    determined that wholesale distribution of General Assistance grants to
    Tribal members was a poor solution to a continuing problem. This was
    resolved by the KIC Tribal Council in 1993; years before the same idea
    was initiated by the Federal Government. There was and still is a need
    to develop academic and employment skills with the ultimate goal of
    permanent, full-time employment.
        In 1997, KIC established a Housing Authority by acting as a HUD
    Indian Housing Block Grant recipient. This Native American Housing
    Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) grant totals nearly one
    million dollars annually.
        Tribal self-governance has strengthened our administrative and
    management control systems, allowing the Tribe to invest back into our
    programs. This increased tribal economic activity is also a direct
    benefit to all of the area communities that have been hit hard by the
    closing of so many of the timber industry facilities and the down-turn
    in regional commercial fishing.
        KIC's various enterprises continue to grow and provide employment
    opportunities for Tribal members and revenue for Tribal governmental
    programs. Even though we continue down the evolutionary road of self-
    determination, we must all recognize the tremendous magnitude of unmet
    need that still exists. These hardships must be bridged with federal
    funding while still working toward increased self-sufficiency.
                 fy-2000 indian health service compact funding
        KIC agrees with the Alaska Native Health Board that there is a need
    for additional patient travel funding in Alaska. Our position is that
    another ten million dollars for this use should be designated for the
    Alaska State Compacts. The burden of travel expense is much higher in
    the expansive and rugged geographical terrain of Alaska. Ketchikan is
    located in the rural Southeast portion of the State where the only
    access to IHS hospital facilities and specialty services is by air
    travel. This has become a tremendous burden on our IHS Compact dollars.
    In 1998, there was an expenditure of $110,610 for 197 patients. So far
    in 1999, the total is $64,000 for 146 patients. This expense takes away
    other services or programs that could be offered by the Tribe from
    Compact dollars. This travel expense could filter down to the patient
    if these dollars were expended early; in fact, causing patients to
    delay a needed medical trip for lack of money could have tragic
    consequences.
        We urge you to keep these concerns in mind during budget
    deliberations. We appeal that Congress will continue working toward
    bridging the health care discrepancy between the general population and
    that of Native peoples.
        We ask this Subcommittee to support the legislative efforts in
    Congress to fund all contract support at 100 percent, and that this is
    fulfilled in a timely manner. Eliminating the statutory cap on the
    amount of IHS contract support funding is crucial for this complete
    funding.
        We ask that you do not extend Section 328 the moratorium on new or
    expanded Self Governance Compacts and Contracts within the Interior
    Department and IHS.
        We request that you eliminate the three-year moratorium on new IHS
    contracts with Alaska Natives Villages or Village Corporations within
    the area served by an Alaska Native Regional Health Entity. KIC rejects
    the concept of using any type of moratorium as a tool to manage-self
    determination or self-governance compacting.
        We ask that you not extend Section 314 of the FY-1999 Omnibus
    Appropriations Act, which attempts to limit liability of the IHS and
    BIA for past failures to fulfill their contract support obligations to
    tribal contractors.
        We also ask that you support legislation making self governance
    permanent for IHS under a new Title V of the Indian Self Determination
    and Education Assistance Act. This Act has been a cornerstone of
    federal policy for Indian tribes to exercise their rights to assume
    local control over federal Indian programs. This Act has permitted
    tribes to exercise greater cost efficiencies and maximizes the benefit
    of each appropriated dollar.
        The self-determination and self-sufficiency fostered by Public Law
    93-638 is the key to our survival as an Indian tribe. Inflationary and
    mandatory pay costs have had a devastating effect on our program
    budgets; these include commissioned officer salaries as well as direct
    hires.
        Population growth is a large part of the equation. The methodology
    used to determine our Compact budget is based on the 1990 census, which
    gave our number to be 1,566. Our current membership is now 4,162. At
    the present time we have over 6,000 active patient medical charts. We
    have seen a patient load increase of sixty five percent from fiscal
    year 1998 to fiscal year 1999 year to date. Although we have been able
    to remain stable and absorb these increases through good management and
    scheduling, our Health Clinic personnel are beginning to reach their
    limits. The methodology of funding these costs has proven to be
    completely inadequate; it has created shortfalls that have been
    absorbed by the Tribe or by other IHS programs. Of the 127 million
    dollar shortfall identified by the IHS for FY-99, only 60 million
    dollars were appropriated. Congress must identify a more logical
    response and methodology of keeping up with this inflationary
    shortfall.
        An increase in funds is needed beginning in fiscal year 2000 to
    alleviate this detrimental erosion of the Indian health care system. We
    cannot maintain the same level of services next year with the same
    amount of service dollars we received in fiscal year 1999.
                          bia contract support funds.
        We share the concerns of other tribes that the inability of the
    Bureau to fund 100 percent of identified contract support costs serves
    as a disincentive to increased contracting or compacting of federal
    programs. In the last five years, approximately 80 percent of the
    tribal indirect costs have been funded. This shortfall greatly reduces
    the ability of the Tribe to administer its Compact, management and
    administrative costs. Inadequate funding clearly weakens and negatively
    impacts the delivery of all program services.
        The Tribe fully supports the Tenth Circuit Court Ramah decision
    that it is wrong for the BIA to dilute its indirect cost burden by
    including in the indirect cost base federal programs that do not
    contribute fully to the indirect cost pool. KIC urges that the system
    of BIA shortfall management be modified to reflect some of the
    strengths of the IHS system, including that aspect which protects
    tribes from reductions over the prior year's base, and thus promotes
    stability within the tribe. Congress and all agencies should continue
    the past effort to fully fund contract support costs through the ISD
    Fund. The BIA should recognize direct contract support costs associated
    with particular programs under tribal operation. Section 106(k) rules
    of the Indian Self-Determination Act should be clarified by Congress to
    reflect that all the indirect cost pool is included in the application
    of this rule. Currently OIG is questioning the appropriateness of
    applying this rule to indirect cost expenditures. This is because
    currently this section only applies to funds paid under the ISDA. The
    indirect cost pool is compromised of other funds as well.
        A Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) Workgroup has been formed in
    response to section 129 of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations. This
    section directed BIA to present a report to the appropriations
    committee, by April 1, 1999. The report would include distribution of
    funds and recommendations on how TPA funds should be allocated in the
    future. There have been many options and dialogue concerning tribal
    revenues, relative needs, regional consortia, and whether or not TPA
    funds should be transferred from prosperous tribes to more needy
    tribes. This has been just some of the dialogue so far.
        It is the position of Ketchikan Indian Corporation that the
    allocation method remain the same. Spread the general increases
    proportionately to all tribes. Let the contractors or compactors
    administer their TPA as they chose; do not use a need-based formula.
    Prosperous tribes can be encouraged to return their TPA and incentives
    can be given to do so.
                                   conclusion
        The BIA and IHS funding for tribal programs falls far short of
    tribal needs. The growth of funding for Indian programs has not kept
    pace with the overall growth in federal spending, or even with
    increased costs faced by tribes and agencies due to inflation. We, as
    do other tribes, use our own resources to supplement our TPA funding to
    address the shortfall. KIC believes self-governance has worked in a
    positive, proactive, synergetic direction.
        Our tribal members are excited about this new chapter in our
    tribe's history, the growth of tribal enterprises that provide
    employment opportunities for tribal members and revenue for tribal
    governmental programs.
        We thank you for this privilege to provide written testimony.
    Please do not hesitate to let me or my staff know if we can provide any
    further information of value to the Subcommittee in its deliberations.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Boris R. Merculief, President, St. George
               Island Traditional Council, St. George Island, AK
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of my people I
    thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony today on
    Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs issues.
        My name is Boris Merculief and I am the elected President of the
    St. George Traditional Council. The St. George Traditional Council is
    the only federally-recognized tribal government entity on St. George
    Island and, pursuant to democratic elections, represents all of St.
    George's resident Aleuts.
        We are a small Aleut community located on a remote Pribilof island
    that has been our homeland for generations. We have about 150 year-
    round residents on our 44 square mile Island. Our homeland is located
    approximately 800 miles south and west of Anchorage in the middle of
    the Bering Sea.
        Through the years, severe weather and a sparse natural environment
    have made our life on St. George island quite harsh. But in recent
    decades the realities endured by the Aleut families on St. George have
    been made even harsher by the actions of the United States government.
    I speak of the sudden and complete shutdown in 1973, by Federal law, of
    our harvesting of fur seals on St. George, a trade that for more than a
    century had been the main livelihood and cultural centerpiece of our
    Aleut community of St. George. Suddenly, in the name of wildlife
    protection, fur seals became untouchable and our Aleut community
    unwelcome on our Island. We Aleuts were declared expendable. The
    implicitly stated policy of the United States was to remove us from our
    homeland, our Island. We have refused to leave.
        For decades before, my forebears and other St. George Aleuts had
    survived on a modest and sustainable local economy based on sealing. We
    jealously protected our fur seal population. We depended on a well-
    managed, healthy and populous fur seal population for our own
    livelihood. We cared for the fur seals. We were committed to the best
    of management and conservation. But somehow this was not enough, and
    outsiders who never understood our Aleut way of life, our culture, our
    values, and our history determined from afar that a complete ban an all
    harvesting of fur seals was necessary for the survival of the seal
    population. That verdict doomed the human families who have for decades
    shared St. George with the fur seals and other wildlife. We now have no
    local economy to speak of. We are increasingly a welfare economy
    dependent on cash assistance from outside our Island.
        We believe there was no sound, rational basis for placing a
    complete ban on our fur seal trade over two decades ago. With proper
    management, the herd was not at risk. Regardless, today the only danger
    confronting the seals is produced by the ban. Meanwhile, the male fur
    seal population has swelled so much that they are killing each other in
    territorial and hormonal spats rivaled only perhaps by the Serbs and
    the Kosovars. We Aleuts, who have been pauperized by an uninformed and
    callous Federal policy from afar, are now consigned to sit in
    dependency and watch our once valuable and healthy resource go to waste
    all around us while we teeter on the edge of survival.
        I recite this background for two purposes. One, this is history
    that has been made in my and your lifetimes. These wrongs must be
    redressed in our lifetimes. Second, it places our appropriations
    request in its real and practical context.
        I lead the Traditional Council which is the Indian Tribe on our
    Island. When the 1966 and 1983 Acts which affect our Island were
    passed, the Traditional Council was the original and only governmental
    entity on St. George Island. Since then, the City of St. George has
    been organized to represent both Aleuts and non-Natives who have
    recently moved to the Island and Tanaq, the Village Corporation, was
    organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to represent
    St. George Aleut shareholders born before 1971 regardless of where they
    live.
        Over the past several years, the Traditional Council has engaged in
    a discussion with other Pribilof Island entities and with our Alaska
    congressional delegation on how best to gain a fair resolution of our
    claims against the United States for the harm it has caused our people
    and our Island by taking away our entire means of livelihood. To this
    day, Federal agencies micro-manage much of our Island for purposes
    having nothing to do with our people who have inhabited the Island for
    more than a century.
        Some of our claims could be resolved through the annual
    appropriations process, and we ask that you give special consideration
    to them for the following reasons.
    request no. 1: transfer ownership of the ``cottage c'' facility for use
                           with our ihs health clinic
        The St. George Traditional Council manages a tribally-operated
    health Clinic funded by the Indian Health Service (IHS). Ours is the
    only health facility and provider on St. George Island. Due to our
    remote Island location, and often extreme weather conditions that
    regularly preclude travel off of our Island, all residents and visitors
    depend on our Clinic for vital health services. Our health clinic
    serves everyone, regardless of whether they are Aleuts or other Alaska
    Natives.
        Our health clinic facility is dangerously dilapidated and IHS's
    many promises of a replacement clinic have not been kept. At present we
    have two health professionals stationed permanently on our Island.
    Periodically, IHS physicians and other medical professionals travel to
    our Island to provide specialty services at our clinic. These
    professionals must be housed while they are on our Island. The travel
    costs plus the high per diem charges we must pay for overnight
    accommodations at the only hotel on our Island have sharply limited the
    medical services we can obtain. The lone, 10-room hotel on St. George
    charges $130 per night, sorely taxing our scarce operating budget.
        Meanwhile, across the street from our clinic is a mostly unused and
    empty National Oceanic and Aeronautic Administration (NOAA) facility.
    Known as ``Cottage C'', this facility is not a cottage but a 4,800
    square foot building that has three floors containing seven bedrooms
    and three baths. In previous years it served as the Island's hospital.
    It is now only used by National Marine and Fisheries Services (NMFS)
    about 10 percent of the year, typically by supervisory personnel when
    they visit our island. In light of this minimal use, the cost to NOAA
    in maintaining this facility cannot be justified.
        When the Federal government pulled out of St. George Island in
    1983, various Federal agencies transferred to the City of St. George
    and Tanaq facilities and staff quarters. However, as the entity
    responsible for all medical care on St. George Island, the St. George
    Traditional Council has no quarters to house the visiting medical
    personnel.
        IHS has notified us that we are slated to receive new primary care
    recurring funds as part of the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC)
    Rural Anchorage Service Unit. These funds will be used to increase
    family physician, dental, optometry and audiology visits to our Island
    in an effort to reduce our backlog of basic health needs. However, a
    substantial amount of these funds will have to be diverted to lodging
    costs unless we are transferred the ownership of ``Cottage C''. We want
    to maximize the funds available for those medical visits. Not only
    would a transfer of Cottage C to the St. George Traditional Council
    reduce the amount of funding NOAA currently expends for its
    maintenance, but it would increase the amount of IHS funding which can
    be used towards these basic specialty health services.
        In addition to serving as temporary staff housing, ``Cottage C''
    could also serve as temporary or overflow space for our existing clinic
    in-patient load. Our present clinic only has two beds. A couple years
    ago, when there were 8 to 10 fishermen injured in an accident, we were
    forced to lay them in the hallways. Fortunately, our local people
    contributed bedding and other bedside care until we could get a medical
    evacuation plane into our landing strip. Daily air service is no longer
    provided to our Island and inclement weather routinely makes landing or
    takeoff of charter medical evacuation aircraft impossible.
        We ask this Subcommittee to set in motion the immediate transfer of
    ``Cottage C'' to the St. George Traditional Council for its use for
    public health purposes. On at least three separate occasions, we have
    requested of NOAA and NMFS that they transfer this property to us, but
    have been refused. We need the help of the Subcommittee to get this
    facility transferred to us immediately.
       request no. 2--special add-on or earmark to repair our ihs clinic.
        Our existing IHS Clinic is facing major structural deficiencies
    that require immediate attention. Much of the plumbing system has been
    destroyed, the central heating system is inoperable, and the clinic
    rests on a bad foundation that is causing structural damage. We are
    faced with an emergency need for funds to rebuild our clinic. We may
    well have to abandon our clinic in the very near future.
        Our clinic building was transferred to the Traditional Council in
    1986 along with a grant of $90,000 from NOAA to fix it up. NOAA
    proposed the transfer of the clinic on a take it or leave it basis. The
    Council received an additional $150,000 from a special Federal fund and
    contributed another $200,000 of its own funds to help bring the clinic
    into useable condition. Since then, severe weather conditions and a
    poor design have caused the clinic's foundation to settle. The settling
    has crushed the sewage piping under the building's foundation,
    preventing some toilets from draining or flushing. The hot water pipes
    feeding the central heating system for the clinic have now rusted away,
    leaving us with no central heat for the past two years. Instead, we now
    must use space heaters. There is growing concern that leaking sewage is
    tainting our limited supply of fresh water. None of the electrical
    wiring throughout the clinic is grounded. Wiring itself is far from
    adequate for modern-day health equipment, and there is significant
    asbestos contamination. These conditions would not be tolerated
    anywhere else in America! Yet the IHS continues to defer, delay and
    ignore our clinic repair or replacement requests.
        An inspection completed on September 20, 1996, by an Environmental
    Health Specialist from the Public Health Service (PHS) listed
    recommendations (Attachment A) of which the most significant was the
    need to build a replacement clinic. The cost estimate for this
    construction was $980,000, based on an engineering report at that time.
    However, on March 19, 1999, we had an engineering firm evaluate our
    clinic and update the estimate (Attachment B). The 1999 report of the
    independent engineering firm concerns us greatly. We may be without any
    clinic facility in the very near future.
        According to Section 204 of the Fur Seal Amendments Act of 1983 16
    U.S.C. 1151, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is obligated to
    provide medical and dental care. The Secretary has delegated that
    responsibility to the Indian Health Service but has not allocated the
    necessary funds to IHS to even minimally carry out the Secretary's
    special statutory obligation. Indeed, the statute requires the
    Secretary to maintain existing and construct new health facilities on
    St. George Island.
        Accordingly, we ask this Subcommittee to add-on or earmark
    sufficient funds to repair or replace our health clinic facility on an
    emergency basis given the serious deterioration and public health
    hazard that our clinic has become.
                  request no. 3--repair of residential housing
        Housing is critically scarce on our Island, as a result of the
    growing demand and the Federal agencies' destruction of inhabitable
    dwellings of residents who chose to leave the Island in the 1970s.
        We recently conducted a community housing survey. Since 1978, only
    nine (9) BIA-funded and eight (8) HUD-funded houses have been built. No
    new residential housing has been constructed on St. George Island since
    1985, except for two houses built by the school district. The last time
    that any housing was repaired with Federal assistance was in 1976.
    Residential housing in our community has not received proper
    maintenance work for twenty years (Attachment C). Asbestos and lead-
    based paint are widespread. Most of us inherited these homes from the
    days when our families were Federal employees who were compensated in
    part by Federal housing. When the United States ended our status as
    Federal employees, closed down our fur seal harvest, and pulled out of
    our Island, we were left with deteriorated houses that suffered from
    years of Federal neglect and lack of maintenance.
        One Federal official, in defending the Federal withdrawal in 1976,
    wrote that home maintenance functions ``would be better handled by some
    individuals or the Corporations who may wish to set up home
    construction and building--supply businesses such as are available in
    most other communities'' (Attachment C). Most other communities have an
    economy. We do not. Without a functioning economy, our people have no
    money to repair their dilapidated homes.
        When these Federal homes were transferred to our residents, the
    United States deeded over seriously flawed facilities under conditions
    that accelerated their wear and tear. The effects of salt water
    infiltration provide a good example of the nature of our home
    maintenance problems. Throughout the 1980s, salt water infiltrated our
    fresh water supply. Finally, in about 1990 we got a new fresh water
    system that kept the salt water at bay. However, during the preceding
    ten years, the salt water had seriously damaged our residential
    plumbing pipes and our residential furnaces. We have fresh water again.
    But we are left with an inoperable infrastructure. Once again, it seems
    the Federal agencies dumped problems on the local people and ran. This
    problem has now become acute for our families.
        We feel the uncertainty of our economic future may not be able to
    provide adequate compensation to the residents to fix the problems
    inherited when the property was transferred from the Federal
    government. If the deferred maintenance is taken care of, this will
    remove one more stumbling block in our path to the development of a
    self-sustaining economy on our Island. Consequently, we have prepared a
    detailed list of houses with estimated repair costs (Attachment D) and
    propose these housing funds be administered by the Council. This
    approach would allow the Council to address life endangering situations
    as well as maintain management and control necessary to get the jobs
    done.
        Accordingly, we request that this Subcommittee add-on or earmark
    sufficient funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be transferred to
    the Traditional Council through our tribal Self-Governance agreement,
    under the auspices of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association in
    accordance with Title IV, Public Law 93-638, as amended, for the
    purpose of meeting these emergency housing repair needs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
                                  introduction
        On behalf of the 32 Tribal Colleges which comprise the American
    Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), we thank the Subcommittee
    for allowing us this opportunity to present our appropriations request
    and justifications for the 26 tribally-controlled colleges funded under
    Public Law 95-471, ``The Tribally-Controlled College or University
    Assistance Act.'' This program, also known as the ``Tribal College
    Act,'' is administered by the United States Department of Interior,
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs. Although
    AIHEC is seeking full funding for the Act's authorized programs, we
    realize that this request must be obtained over time. We ask that the
    Subcommittee fully support and build upon the President's Budget
    Request of a $7.1 million increase for Titles I and II in fiscal year
    2000 (FY00). Specifically, we request an increase of $10 million over
    fiscal year 1999 funding for Titles I and II, which provide core
    operational funding for 26 colleges. Additionally, we seek Title III
    funding at $2 million for endowments; Title IV funding at $2 million
    for economic development; $1.8 million under the facilities renovation
    authority of the law; and $214,000 for technical assistance. The total
    amount requested under this Act is $46,234,000.
        AIHEC was founded in 1972 by six of the first tribally-controlled
    community colleges. Today, AIHEC is a cooperatively sponsored effort on
    the part of 32 member institutions throughout the United States and
    Canada, all of which are fully accredited (with the exception of three
    institutions that are accreditation candidates). The Tribal Colleges
    were chartered by their constituent tribes over the last 30 years to
    bring greater access to higher education opportunities to American
    Indians living on remote and economically disadvantaged reservations.
    Since their creation, the Tribal Colleges have been addressing the
    problems and challenges of our welfare system. Throughout their
    history, Tribal Colleges have provided GED and other college
    preparatory courses.
        Our mission requires us to help move American Indian people toward
    self-sufficiency and help make American Indians productive, tax-paying
    members of American society. Fulfilling that obligation will become
    increasingly difficult as more and more welfare recipients turn to the
    Tribal Colleges for training and employment opportunities. Tribal
    Colleges serve over 25,000 students each year, offering primarily two-
    year degrees, with a few colleges now offering four-year and graduate
    degrees. Together, they represent the most significant and successful
    developments in American Indian education history, promoting
    achievement among students who would otherwise never know educational
    success.
        Please note that AIHEC's membership also includes institutions of
    higher education funded under separate authorities, and AIHEC fully
    supports their independently submitted Interior Appropriations
    requests. These include Haskell Indian Nations University and
    Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; the Institute of American
    Indian Arts; and United Tribes Technical College.
                       background and funding disparities
        The Tribally-Controlled College or University Assistance Act of
    1978 provides funding for the operating budgets of one qualifying
    institution per tribe based on an American Indian enrollment formula.
    The Act does not provide funding for non-Indian students, although
    Tribal Colleges serve an increasing number of non-Indian students,
    approximately 18 percent of Tribal College students are non-Indians
    from the surrounding rural communities, with little or no funding for
    these students coming from the state or Federal government. Federal
    appropriations have never reached the levels authorized under Title I.
    Funding for the colleges was first authorized at $4,000 per full-time
    equivalent Indian student, or Indian Student Count (ISC). In 1998, this
    level was raised to $6,000 per ISC, to more closely reflect the true
    cost of higher education at a community college. Due to a combination
    of inadequate appropriations and dramatic enrollment growth at the
    colleges, funding for the Tribal Colleges has never reached either of
    these levels. In fact, even with the fiscal year 1999 increase of $1.4
    million, the colleges suffered a decrease of $53 per Indian student and
    are still funded at less than half of the level authorized, or $2,964
    per full-time Indian student.
        Compounding the existing funding disparities is the fact that
    Tribal College enrollments have increased dramatically--the 26 Tribal
    Colleges funded under this Act now serve 22,000 students every year.
    Additionally, funding for Tribal Colleges, insufficient from the
    outset, has not even kept pace with inflation--in fiscal year 1999, the
    Title I Tribal Colleges received only $133 more per Indian student than
    they received in 1981. This represents an increase of only four-percent
    over an 18-year period. When inflation is factored in, the payment's
    value actually decreased by $1,261 (from $2,831 to $1,570) since 1981.
        Tribal Colleges, in many ways, are victims of their own successes--
    the dramatic enrollment increases recorded by the colleges, coupled
    with a growing number of Tribally-Controlled Colleges, have forced
    Title I colleges to slice an inadequate pie into incredibly small
    pieces. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, in two
    separate studies praised the Tribal Colleges, for providing access to
    students, strengthening communities and rebuilding cultures. The first
    recommendation of the most recent report, requested full funding for
    the Tribally-Controlled College or University Assistance Act. Pointing
    to the significant enrollment gains posted by the colleges--Title I
    Tribal Colleges reported a 270 percent increase from 1981 to 1998--the
    report called on the Administration and Congress to fund the colleges
    at fully authorized levels.
        Our request for an $8.3 million increase for Title I would amount
    to only $3,827 per full-time Indian student, which is still
    significantly less than the average amount under which mainstream
    community colleges operate. It is also significantly less than the
    authorized amount of $6,000 and just a modest increase over the current
    Indian student allocation of $2,964.
        Tribal Colleges have survived on a patchwork of smaller,
    competitive, short-term grants that supplement the insufficient Titles
    I and II operational funding. This is not a stable way of funding
    Tribal Colleges, but these institutions have little choice. Several
    colleges have faced serious struggles because of this funding
    instability, and accrediting agencies are warning the colleges about
    the hazards of relying too heavily on ``soft money.'' Unlike most state
    institutions, the Tribal Colleges are young, as most were founded
    within the past 25 years. They have not built the funding reserves that
    are common at older institutions. The lack of reserves actually forced
    two of the colleges to cease operations during the government furloughs
    and the budgetary impasse of 1996. Therefore, it is more important than
    ever that the Tribal College Act achieve what it was designed to do:
    provide for the operational support of Tribal Colleges.
        While mainstream institutions are able to fall back on a foundation
    of stable state support, Tribal Colleges are located on Federal trust
    territory, and the states have no obligation to fund them. They receive
    little or no funding from the states in which they are located. It is
    important to note that Tribal Colleges are reliant on the Federal
    government for their operational funding. Tribal Colleges are also
    inequitably served by state block grants, and are frequently neglected
    in block grant distributions, as the recently passed welfare reform
    block grants demonstrate.
        Tribal Colleges cannot rely on local tax base revenue. Although
    Tribes possess the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty
    rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of a strong
    reservation economy diminish the creation of a reservation tax base.
        Indian gaming is not a viable funding source for Tribal Colleges.
    The vast majority of the reservations served by Tribal Colleges are
    located in extremely remote and economically disadvantaged areas.
    Therefore, gaming has not been a significant or stable source of income
    for the majority of the colleges. In addition, gaming tribes should be
    held to the same standard as states, which are not required to share
    their gaming revenue with other states, nor are they penalized for the
    success of their lotteries or gambling.
        Tribal Colleges are a direct result of the special relationship
    between American Indian tribes and the Federal government. Tribal
    Colleges are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian
    nations, which hold a special legal relationship with the Federal
    government, actualized by numerous treaties, Supreme Court decisions,
    and prior Congressional action. Tribal Colleges serve communities in
    the most rural areas of our nation. For Tribal College students, both
    Indian and non-Indian, higher education would otherwise be
    inaccessible. Tribal Colleges do not discriminate based on race or
    ethnicity. They are simply and effectively removing barriers that have
    long prevented equal access to higher education for reservation
    communities.
             further justification and high priority areas of need
        AIHEC recognizes the Congressional goal of achieving a balanced
    budget, and we applaud this effort. Within that framework, AIHEC would
    like to highlight the following justifications and target highest
    priority areas of need for increased funding for Tribal Colleges.
    Justifications
        1. Tribal Colleges provide access to critical postsecondary
    education opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. Most
    American Indian reservations are located in extremely remote areas, and
    their populations are among the poorest in the nation. For many
    American Indian communities, the nearest mainstream institution is
    several hours away, making attendance virtually impossible. The cost of
    attending a mainstream institution is usually prohibitively high,
    especially when tuition, travel, housing, textbooks, and all other
    expenses are considered. Unemployment on the reservations served by
    Tribal Colleges can reach 86 percent, and over 90 percent of Tribal
    College students qualify for need-based federal financial aid.
        2. Tribal Colleges are producing a new generation of highly trained
    American Indian contributors: Teachers, tribal government leaders,
    engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
    professionals. Most of these new professionals are the first in their
    families to attend college. By teaching the job skills most in demand
    on their reservations, Tribal Colleges are laying a solid foundation
    for tribal economic growth, with benefits for nearby off-reservation
    communities. Most Tribal College graduates remain in their tribal
    communities, applying their newly acquired skills and knowledge where
    they are most needed. For example, 87 percent of Little Big Horn
    College (Crow Agency, Montana) graduates have found employment within
    the Crow Agency reservation community.
        3. Tribal College students and faculty also contribute to our
    nation as a whole, by participating in our national community of
    researchers, scientists, authors, artists, and teachers. Despite a lack
    of adequate funding, Tribal Colleges have established centers for
    research and education that are contributing in revolutionary ways.
    Many Tribal Colleges conduct economic development research, investigate
    new land uses and encourage tribal entrepreneurship. Each college has
    completed a detailed economic development plan that strongly justifies
    the need for the economic development appropriation (Title IV)
    requested in this testimony.
        4. Tribal Colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
    accreditation boards, and offer top-quality academic programs. For
    example, Turtle Mountain Community College, located in Belcourt, North
    Dakota, and several other Tribal Colleges have been granted a ten-year
    accreditation term--the longest term allowed for any higher education
    institution.
        5. Tribal Colleges serve as highly effective bridges to mainstream
    four-year postsecondary institutions. A recent survey of Tribal
    Colleges indicated that an average of 40 percent of graduating students
    transfer to four-year institutions, compared with a national average of
    22 percent. A case study compared students who transferred from Salish
    Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana, with American Indian students and
    found the Tribal College students were better prepared for the
    challenges of mainstream four-year institutions and were more likely to
    complete Bachelor's degree programs.
        6. Tribal Colleges serve as community centers, providing libraries,
    tribal archives, career centers, economic development centers, public
    meeting places, child care centers, nutrition and substance abuse
    counseling, and a broad range of other vitally needed facilities.
        7. Tribal Colleges have become centers for American Indian language
    and cultural research, preservation, and revitalization. Many Tribal
    Colleges now serve as tribal archives, and offer courses in tribal
    history, literature, government, language, kinship, and other aspects
    of American Indian culture.
    High priority areas of need
        Like mainstream institutions, these institutions strive to fully
    develop their institution and to expand services to address the needs
    of their increasing student bodies. If each college received full or at
    least the increased core operational funding in FY00, Tribal Colleges
    could focus on some of their high priority areas of need, such as (1)
    maintaining accreditation by stabilizing their core operational budgets
    and beginning to build upon existing programs (now, due to low funding
    levels, the colleges must piecemeal their core budgets together) (2)
    improving instructional capabilities and enhancing student support
    services; (3) expanding library services and collections, and
    establishing a tribal archive; (4) facilities maintenance and
    improvement, and enhancing laboratory facilities; (5) expanding
    technology through purchasing computers and establishing Internet
    access; (6) expanding child care facilities; and (7) constructing
    community or cultural centers.
        building on the president's budget request for fiscal year 2000
        The President's Budget Request reflects a $7.1 million increase for
    the operational grants funded under Titles I and II of this Act.
    Although we are very appreciative for this increase request and
    acknowledge that it will be helpful to the 26 institutions funded under
    this Act, it reflects only a beginning to what must be a sustained
    commitment. The gross funding disparities described above have caused
    considerable hardship on the colleges. Only when full funding is
    appropriated will equal educational opportunities begin to exist for
    American Indian peoples, giving the Tribal Colleges the opportunity to
    ensure that the quality of their educational services, which they have
    struggled so hard to achieve, are not compromised.
                                   conclusion
        In light of the justifications presented in this statement and the
    even further enrollment increases that will result from welfare reform,
    we strongly urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal
    Colleges. Fulfillment of AIHEC's FY00 request will strengthen the
    mission of these colleges and the enormous, positive impact they have
    on their respective communities. This funding will help ensure that our
    colleges are able to properly educate and prepare thousands of American
    Indians for the workforce of the 21st century. Without the Tribal
    Colleges to serve as the means for moving from welfare to work, much of
    the reform accomplished by the Congress will fail throughout Indian
    Country. As demonstrated in this statement, Tribal Colleges have been
    extremely responsible with the Federal support they have received over
    the last 18 years. These institutions have proven themselves as a sound
    Federal investment, and we ask for your continued support.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to present our funding
    requests. We respectfully ask the Members of this Subcommittee for
    their continued support and consideration of our fiscal year 2000
    appropriations request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman, Tribal Council,
         Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
        Mr. Chairman, I am Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman of the Tribal Council
    of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.
    Our phone number is 541-553-1161. My testimony, which I submit today
    for the Subcommittee's hearing record, addresses the proposed fiscal
    year 2000 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health
    Service, and the National Park Service with the following requests and
    comments:
        (1) We request that the $20 million increase for B.I.A. law
    enforcement be doubled, that those funds be available to tribally
    operated law enforcement programs, and that $500,000 be specifically
    designated for Warm Springs.
        (2) We request the designation of $3.5 million in B.I.A.
    Construction as a federal match in building a new elementary education
    facility at Warm Springs.
        (3) We support the $250,000 B.I.A. request for Columbia River
    fishing access site management, and ask that those funds be
    contractible for law enforcement.
        (4) With regard to the Indian Health Service Budget, we request:
        That I.H.S. ``Special Pay'' be dedicated to providing full pay to
    federal employees and installations;
        That $5 million be restored to the Community Health Representatives
    program;
        That Contract Health Services funding be increased beyond the
    requested 3.5 percent;
        That $13 million be added to the requested amount for the
    Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund; and
        That the overall I.H.S. budget be increased to reflect population
    growth and medical inflation increases.
        (5) We support the $200 million in the National Park Service budget
    request for the Land Legacy Initiative.
        The items below are listed according to priority. We wish to
    emphasize that the top two priorities for the Confederated Tribes of
    Warm Springs remain the first two items, both of which are very basic
    for any community: law enforcement and education.
        (1) We strongly urge that the requested $20 million increase for
    B.I.A. law enforcement funding be at least doubled, ask Congress to
    assure B.I.A. law enforcement funds can be used for all tribally
    operated law enforcement programs, and request that at least $500,000
    be designated specifically to provide law enforcement services at Warm
    Springs.
        The Warm Springs Reservation is exempt from Public Law 280 state
    criminal jurisdiction, so law enforcement on our Reservation rests with
    the Federal and Tribal governments. B.I.A. provided law enforcement on
    our Reservation up to the 1950s, but starting in the termination era,
    withdrew its support. Since that time, except for some support for our
    corrections facility and investigations branch, our Tribe has covered
    the full cost of public safety on our Reservation. Recently, declining
    tribal revenues and population increases have severely strained our
    capability to bear this burden. Now, at any one time, we can only
    afford two patrol officers to cover the entire 1,000 square mile
    Reservation, which, while mostly rural or even remote, is bisected by
    one busy highway and adjacent to another busy highway--this one a major
    drug route--to the east. Consequently, we share the high crime rates
    that are all too common in Indian Country. In response to this national
    crisis, B.I.A. initiated a law enforcement improvement effort in fiscal
    year 1999, and while we were able to access some of those funds to take
    part in a Central Oregon law enforcement and drug interdiction effort,
    B.I.A. restricted the use of fiscal year 1999 funds for additional
    patrol officers to only those law enforcement programs operated
    directly by the Bureau itself. Tribal programs, such as ours, could not
    get what we needed most: additional patrol and corrections officers.
    Now, for fiscal year 2000, B.I.A. is requesting another $20 million law
    enforcement increase, which still falls far, far short of the pressing
    law enforcement needs in Indian Country, so we ask that the requested
    increase be at least doubled. And to make sure that those funds can be
    put to their most effective use, we ask that Congress assure they be
    available to tribal law enforcement programs for patrol and corrections
    officers. We further ask that at least $500,000 be dedicated for patrol
    officers, equipment, and support personnel at Warm Springs, so that the
    B.I.A. can fulfill the trust responsibility it has avoided for more
    than forty year on our Reservation by meaningfully contributing to our
    law enforcement.
        (2) We request the designation of $3.5 million in B.I.A.
    Construction as a federal match in building a new elementary (k-6)
    education facility at Warm Springs.
        In 1960, when the B.I.A. ceased directly providing education to
    Warm Springs children, it turned over its facility, a former boarding
    school, to the local school district. Today, that facility is still the
    principal school on our Reservation, despite its age and severe under
    sizing. Today, even with many Warm Springs Elementary School students
    in modular units, our growing school population requires that children
    in 6th grade and above be bussed to the town of Madras, which can take
    an hour and a half one way. Clearly, a new school is needed at Warm
    Springs, but the local school district can only afford half the $7
    million cost. Accordingly, we request that the balance of construction
    funding be provided in the B.I.A. Construction budget. B.I.A. has
    informed us there is no legal impediment to their funding construction
    of a school at Warm Springs, and with a local match and local coverage
    of operational expenses, it is a good example of fiscal cooperation.
        (3) We support the $250,000 B.I.A. request for Columbia River
    fishing access site management in the ``Other Recurring Programs,
    Resources Management'' budget, and request the funds be contractible
    for law enforcement.
        After U.S. construction of Bonneville Dam in the 1930s inundated
    traditional tribal treaty fishing sites on the Columbia River, the U.S.
    repeatedly pledged to create 400 acres of new sites ``in lieu'' of
    those submerged. However, only five sites totaling about 40 acres were
    provided, and they became very crowded and run down. Finally, in 1988,
    Public Law 100-581, Title IV, authorized the Corps of Engineers'
    renovation of existing sites and development of twenty six new sites,
    totaling not more than 400 acres. Upon each site's completion, the
    Corps turns it over to B.I.A. to be managed in trust. The turn-over
    procedures were memorialized in a June, 1995 memorandum of
    understanding between the Corps and B.I.A., including Corps agreement
    to provide a lump sum for each site's initial operation and
    maintenance. For its part of the M.O.U., the B.I.A. pledged to provide
    $250,000 for administration of the sites, including law enforcement.
    Several of the new sites have now been turned over to B.I.A. and are
    already being intensively used by tribal fishermen. We ask that the
    B.I.A. O&M funds be provided, that they include use for law
    enforcement, which is critically needed at these crowded sites quite
    distant from the reservations, and that the funds be subject to Self-
    Determination Act contracting, so that the funds may be more
    effectively and efficiently used by the tribes themselves.
        (4) Indian Health Service Budget:
        We ask that Congress direct that any ``Special Pay'' funds
    appropriated to the Indian Health Service be dedicated to providing
    full pay to federal employees and installations.
        ``Special Pay'' is an element of the Indian Health Service budget
    intended to fully address pay and benefits for I.H.S. Physicians and
    Dentists working at I.H.S. operated locations, such as the Wellness
    Center at Warm Springs. There has, however, been discussion about
    redistributing this pay among all I.H.S. funded health activities,
    including programs that, through contract or compact, are not directly
    operated by the I.H.S.. This would diminish the availability of those
    funds to cover the employment obligations owed I.H.S. Federal
    employees, diverting the funds from their intended purpose, either
    depriving Service employees of the pay and benefits they are owed or
    forcing the reduction of staff (and services) at IHS operated
    facilities such as ours.
        The Community Heath Representative (CHR) Program should have its $5
    million restored.
        This program serves as a vital link between our elders and the
    Indian Health Clinics and Hospitals. CHR's are mostly Tribal employees
    who are trained in health prevention and health screening techniques.
    Sometimes our elders are resistant to seeking health care when it is
    most needed, and CHRs have the ability to communicate with them and to
    encourage and assist them in obtaining the necessary help.
        Contract Health Services (CHS) funds need a substantially larger
    increase than the purposed 3.8 percent in the President's Budget. The
    CHS funds represent 15-20 percent of the total Health Services account
    in the IHS budget. This program has been under-funded since 1992, and
    medical inflation has further diminished the CHS purchasing power since
    then. A 3.8 percent increase won't even meet current medical cost
    increases, let alone begin to address the backlog of unaddressed need
    for this large and vital part of the I.H.S. budget.
        Add $13 million to the Administration's request for the
    Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund. Within Contract Health Services is
    a $12 million subactivity for the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund
    (CHEF). The fund is a lifesaver for Indian health programs. Its purpose
    is to fund catastrophic health care cases with large expense (over
    $19,000). The Catastrophic Health Emergency fund is an important source
    of funds for programs that experience high cost cases. These cases
    place a tremendous financial and ethical burden on a Service Unit or a
    tribe if the case occurs near the end of the year after the Fund has
    been exhausted. A high cost case at a small Indian health program can
    wipe out resources for other routine health care needs. The $12 million
    proposed for fiscal year 2000 is less than was appropriated in fiscal
    year 1992 (even without factoring for inflation). In fiscal year 1998,
    501 cases seeking a total of $9,850,000 in CHEF assistance went unpaid.
    The actual need is certainly greater than $9 million because the fund
    is depleted well before the end of the Fiscal year. Every year, tribes
    know that, in the last quarter of the year, claims are not likely to be
    approved, and many programs simply do not submit claims. $13 million
    should be added to the CHEF fund.
        Increase the IHS budget to reflect population growth and medical
    inflation increases.
        Overall the Indian Health Service has been underfunded in two major
    areas: 1. population growth and 2. medical inflation costs. The
    population of Native American and Alaskan Natives has increased without
    a corresponding increase of IHS Health care dollars. And medical
    inflation has increased at 6-10 percent per year without any IHS budget
    increase, seriously eroding the purchasing power of our health care
    dollars.
        (5) We support the $200 million added to the National Park Service
    budget for state and tribal participation in the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund as part of the Interior Department's Land Legacy
    Initiative.
        The issue of declining salmon habitat points out the increasing
    importance of the ability of states, local, and (subject to
    authorization) tribal governments to secure open land for conservation
    purposes, and these funds will be of great help by reinvigorating the
    so-called ``stateside'' of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Norton Sound Health Corporation
        NSHC Priority Budget Items. The Norton Sound Health Corporation
    (NSHC) submits this statement on the fiscal year 2000 Indian Health
    Services budget and makes the following requests:
        (1) Provide appropriations to fully fund mandatory cost increases
    and increase level of need funded for Alaska Natives/American Indians;
        (2) Community Health Aide Program increase for Alaska of $20
    million;
        (3) Patient travel increase for Alaska of $10 million;
        (4) Facilitate alternative financing for Norton Sound hospital and
    other facilities construction projects.
        (5) Fully fund contract support costs;
        (6) Support $4 million budget request for Alaska Telemedicine
    project;
        (1) Fully Fund Mandatory Cost Increases and Increase Level of Need
    Funding.--The NSHC requests the Subcommittee to recommend funding for
    all mandatory cost increases incurred by the IHS and tribal health care
    providers, including medical and non-medical inflation, mandatory pay
    increases, and population growth. Although the Administration's fiscal
    year 2000 budget request includes $34.5 million for built-in costs,
    this amount would only partially fund pay raises and inflation. But
    this amount is far less than the $93 million IHS conservatively
    estimates is needed to fund inflation and built-in costs for just
    fiscal year 2000. And the IHS estimate of $93 million does not include
    increased costs for population growth.
        The chronic underfunding of built-in costs since fiscal year 1996
    for tribal and IHS health programs has required us to absorb an ever-
    increasing amount of mandatory cost increases has limited the amount
    available for direct health care services for our people. In fiscal
    year 1997 and in the subsequent fiscal year 1998, Norton Sound Health
    Corporation experienced audited losses of $1.9 million and $1.8
    million, respectively. We are projecting another loss of approximately
    $600,000 in this current fiscal year 1999 if something is not done to
    increase our available funding for operations. These losses relate
    primarily to the inflationary costs we have had to absorb for salary
    increases to remain competitive in our recruitment of health care
    workers, the above normal costs relating to patient travel and medivac
    transports, and the decrease in alternate sources of payors (revenues)
    for Native Indian Health Services beneficiaries. We are seeing an
    increasing decline in the private insurance and medicaid coverage for
    Native eligibles which results in a transfer of costs from these
    alternate payors to the Indian Health Services compact. Our
    Administration and the Board of Directors have done all that we can to
    reduce expenses including: cutting back on Board meetings, eliminating
    administrative support staff, seeking lower cost facility lease
    alternatives, taking our phone system in-house, enacting a reduction in
    force (RIF) of certain programs, eliminating our substance abuse
    program, eliminating our Self Governance Office, eliminating our grant
    writer office, eliminating our health education program, cutting out
    training and reducing travel for staff, delaying pay increases, cutting
    back on employee benefits and streamlining certain departments in order
    to reduce administrative supervisory costs. All this has been done with
    much pain and has resulted in a truly ``barebones'' operation. If we do
    not see some relief soon, we will have no choice but to begin to cut
    out our primary care services including patient travel, village clinic
    care, the number of physicians and other practitioners as well as other
    extreme measures.
        We are hoping that the momentum of support we have seen over this
    past year from the President's office and Congress for Native Health
    programs will prevent this from happening. We support the National
    Congress of American Indians' efforts to bring the level of funding for
    the Indian Health Services to a par with health care expenditures for
    typical United States citizens. We also support the Indian Health
    Services attempt to quantify this disparity, through the report by the
    Level of Need Workgroup, in response to Congressional inquiries into
    this grave matter. The Level of Need Workgroup's preliminary report
    (final report due out in May 1999) states that the net risk adjusted
    annual costs of a typical Blue Cross/Blue Shield benefits plan for
    Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries is greater than $3,000 per person.
    This compares with the personal services funding received of only
    $1,350 per Native user. We request that the Congress look closely at
    this report in considering the fiscal year 2000 budget and consider a
    phase-in funding approach over the next three to five years to bring
    parity in health care for the underserved first citizens of our great
    country.
        We are equally concerned that any proposed efforts to institute
    across the board budget cuts for federal agencies exclude the Indian
    Health Services in light of the demonstrated unmet health care needs in
    Indian country. We urgently request that the Congress consider the
    Indian Health Services separately when contemplating any such action in
    the ensuing months of budget deliberations.
        (2) Community Health Aide Program increase of $20 million.--Norton
    Sound Health Corporation is currently working with the Alaska Native
    Health Board to update the report on the Community Health Aide program,
    CHA/P in Crisis. This report identifies problems including below-
    standard salaries, high attrition rates, and lack of support and
    training. The Alaska Health Aide program is a model system of
    delivering low cost primary care to patients residing in Rural Alaska.
    This program saw some relief in funding several years ago; however, it
    is now on the brink of another crisis if increased costs are not met.
    We ask that Congress consider raising CHA/P salaries to a standard of
    $20/hour, to increase funding for training centers and for support
    costs in the village clinics. These trained quasi-professionals act as
    primary care physicians and emergency care staff in mostly remote areas
    of Alaska, several hundred miles away from any physician-based
    facility. The alternative to this system of care would be very costly,
    in terms of dollars and in patient care. We urge full support of this
    program with phased-in funding to include at least $20 million in the
    fiscal year 2000 Indian Health Services Budget.
        (3) Patient Travel increase of $10 million.--We ask for an increase
    of $10 million for patient travel for Alaska. Physical access to care
    is a critical and expensive component of health care in Alaska. While
    the community Health Aid Program and physicians assistants provide
    basic health care at the village level, many services and procedures
    are not feasible in village clinics. The majority of rural Alaska
    Natives who need a doctor's care must travel by air to receive these
    services; the current average cost for travel between the village and
    Nome is $250 round trip and between Nome and Anchorage is $650 round
    trip. Medivac costs for critical care patients average $2,500 between
    Nome and the villages and $6,300 between Nome and Anchorage, not
    including medical escort costs, supplies costs and any airline standby
    charges. In addition, there are other related costs, i.e., hotel, food
    and ground transportation. The 1991 report, Access to Care: Crisis for
    Alaska Natives found that 40 percent of patients who need treatment or
    diagnostic services deferred it due to the costs for air fare and
    lodging. Of note is that the new Alaska Native Medical Center has some
    accommodations for family members accompanying patients to their
    facility in Anchorage, but it by no means can house all those who need
    it. Nome has no patient quarters available for village patients or
    escorts seeking care at our regional hospital.
        (4) Facility Construction Costs for the Norton Sound Regional
    Hospital.--As we testified last year, one of NSHC's greatest needs is
    the replacement or renovation of the severely overcrowded Norton Sound
    Regional Hospital. Originally constructed in 1948 and since expanded,
    the hospital is filled with code violations and safety deficiencies
    which include unsafe wiring and plumbing, inadequate ventilation, and
    structural problems due to foundation movement. Although we have
    completed an application for a new hospital, it appears that IHS
    construction funding will not be forthcoming for a very long time,
    given the backlog for funding the Indian Health Services Facilities
    Construction projects. The NSHC has continued to explore alternative
    funding through borrowing the necessary funds from private sector
    sources. In order to do this, however, we must be assured of stable IHS
    funding for lease of the space to deliver health services.
        The Indian Self-Determination Act, as amended, and the Indian
    Health Care Improvement Act (Sec. 804) was intended to provide for this
    situation by requiring IHS, at the request of a tribe, to lease
    tribally-owned facilities that are used for the delivery of health care
    services. We have been prohibited from obtaining financing in this way,
    however, by an Office of Management and Budget policy which requires
    the entire costs of a long-term lease to be scored in the first year.
    This policy makes it cost prohibitive for IHS to lease space.
        We were disappointed that in spite of the fiscal year 1999 House
    Appropriations Report request to IHS that its fiscal year 2000 budget
    address alternative construction options, such as reinstituting a joint
    venture facilities construction program, cost-sharing arrangements and
    the enhanced use of third-party collections for improving aging
    facilities, it failed to do so. We understand that IHS had proposed $15
    million for join venture projects, but that it did not make it into the
    final Administration request. We must continue to work together to find
    a sensible way to achieve the goal of providing health care in a safe
    and adequate environment.
        Norton Sound Health Corporation strongly urges Congress to provide
    authorization for establishment of a loan program to fund renovation
    and expansion of existing facilities and construction of new facilities
    owned and/or operated by Tribes. The program could include direct loans
    and loan guarantees over a multi-year period. Management of the program
    could lie outside of the Indian Health Services if necessary.
        (5) Funding for Contract Support Costs Shortfalls.--While the NSHC
    appreciates the Administration's request for an additional $35 million
    in contract support costs, it is still considerably less than the
    amount needed. The IHS estimates the current shortfall in contract
    support is $93 million, although that amount may be reduced pending
    final negotiations and lifting of the moratorium on new and extended
    contracts. Thus, the NSHC fully supports the Alaska Native Health Board
    recommendation of full funding for the IHS contract support costs, in
    furtherance of the well-established federal policy to encourage tribal
    self-governance. Additionally, we urge that Congress allow the
    completion of the National Congress of American Indians-led national
    review of contract support policy and refinement of distribution
    methodologies before instituting any changes to the current system.
        We request the Subcommittee to work with the Department of Health
    and Human Services to assure that sufficient funds for contract support
    costs are included in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
        (6) Alaska Telemedicine Project.--The NSHC urges that Congress fund
    the Administration's budget request of $4 million (the same amount as
    appropriated in fiscal year 1999) for the Alaska Federal Health Care
    Access Network (AFCAN). The AFCAN is a multi-year telemedicine and
    telehealth technology project which will connect over 200 federally
    funded health care facilities (including tribal clinics, tribal
    regional hospitals and clinics) to facilitate the sharing of clinical
    and patient information.
        Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations and for
    your attention to matters affecting the health of Alaska Natives and
    Native people throughout the nation.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) is the provider of
    health care services to more than 6,000 Native and 2,100 non-Native
    residents of the Bering Straits Region in northwest Alaska. NSHC,
    headquartered in Nome, is the only source of health care, excluding one
    private dental practice, in a region, which encompasses more than
    25,000 square miles. NSHC serves and is controlled by 20 Native
    villages within the Bering Strait Region. We provide a wide array of
    health care services, from preventive services to the operation of an
    intermediate care nursing facility and the Norton Sound Regional
    Hospital.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Robert E. Kenahan, Tribal Police Chief,
                           Narragansett Indian Tribe
        On behalf of the Narragansett Indian Tribe, I am pleased to present
    the Tribe's statement concerning the fiscal year 2000 budget of the
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. On December 30th,
    1998, history was made in my home State of Rhode Island when the
    Narragansett Tribe selected me as the Tribe's first appointed Police
    Chief. In addition to that honor, I was also pleased that my swearing-
    in ceremony was attended not only by tribal members but by local
    dignitaries such as former U.S. Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse and current
    U.S. Attorney Meg Curran. Their attendance spoke well of the
    government-to-government relationship that all tribes seek to
    strengthen with the United States. It is my hope, and the hope of this
    proud Tribe, that working together, we may forge a strong and
    meaningful relationship with our State and Federal counterparts in the
    law enforcement field.
        The Narragansett Tribe urges Congress to increase the President's
    fiscal year 2000 budget request of $138 million for BIA law
    enforcement. This is $42 million over the fiscal year 1999 level. Of
    this increase, however, $20 million would be a program increase, with
    the remaining balance for built-in costs. We believe that the program
    increase should be double that.
        I would not be here before you today if it were not for the
    existence of a COPS FAST Grant through the Department of Justice which
    augments the Tribe's Public Law 93-638 funding. I am a Korean War
    veteran and retired Rhode Island State Police Sergeant with nearly 40
    years experience in law enforcement; 21 years as a uniformed officer,
    detective and police liason with the State Attorney General's office
    and 18 years in the security business, rising to become Vice President
    of Pinkerton's Security.
        As head of the newly formed Narragansett Tribe Police Department I
    wish to apprise you of the current working conditions. I ask for your
    assistance to provide additional funds to the BIA budget to make the
    Narragansett Tribe's, as well as other tribal law enforcement programs,
    more effective and self-reliant. As a law enforcement professional, I
    truly believe that funds spent in law enforcement are funds well spent.
    An effective law enforcement program can save lives and make a
    difference in the community. It is an essential component of any
    community's infrastructure. Without adequate law enforcement services
    and a judicial system, Indian tribes cannot hope to attract economic
    development to their reservations to improve the living conditions of
    their members and break the cycle of dependence on Federal
    appropriations.
        The Tribe is appreciative of the Administration's program increase
    of $20 million dollars over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for Law
    Enforcement and $2.5 million increase in Tribal Courts to carry out the
    Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, a joint
    effort by the BIA and Justice to combat rising crime rates in Indian
    Country and improve public safety. Although these increases are
    significant, I associate myself with the remarks of Assistant
    Secretary-Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover, who stated that ``Indian Country
    needs in every program are massive'' as well as the remarks of Thomas
    Leclaire of the Office of Tribal Justice who stated that Tribal and BIA
    law enforcement agencies have insufficient staff and lack the
    facilities and basic communications and intelligence gathering
    technology required to address the law enforcement needs which exist in
    Indian country today. Our program is typical. Our fiscal year 2000
    proposed BIA funding for law enforcement is $69,000. Our need is more
    than seven times that at roughly $500,000.
        Using the Narragansett Tribe's Law Enforcement program as an
    example, I would like to illustrate just how critical increases in
    Federal appropriations for Law Enforcement in Indian Country are. As a
    former State Police Sergeant, the conditions which I and the other
    Narragansett Tribal police officer operate under are hazardous,
    inefficient and simply unacceptable.
        1. Three Additional Officers are Required to Meet Minimal Law
    Enforcement Needs ($250,000).--At the present time, the Narragansett
    Police Department consists of one patrol officer (Derrick Johnson) and
    myself. We have one patrol vehicle that my patrolman and I must share
    which is not adequately equipped to perform regular duties. The
    reservation consists of approximately 2000 acres, some parcels of which
    are not contiguous. We must patrol the Narragansett Church, Longhouse,
    Four Winds Community Center, Administration Building, out-patient
    health center, housing site and an additional 1500 acres of fee
    property. We patrol for trespassers, abandoned vehicles, illegal
    hunting and fishing and must respond to any emergencies. A full patrol
    takes two and one half to three hours.
        Although we are on-call 24 hours a day, evening and weekend patrols
    are limited and are performed on an ad hoc basis. At a minimum, we
    require an additional three officers, with BIA Police Academy training
    and other law enforcement training, to provide the Tribe's 2000 members
    with adequate law enforcement services. We have had preliminary
    discussions with the Tribe's health department on the subject of
    developing a family violence program, but that too requires that we
    have adequate law enforcement staff.
        In a matter of weeks, the Tribe's reservation will host summer
    campers and an annual Pow Wow which attracts thousands of spectators.
    We have two ponds on our reservation--Deep Pond and School House Pond--
    and at present we do not have adequate safety ropes and buoys in the
    event an emergency situation arises. Our existing police force cannot
    handle the number of people we anticipate will come onto the Tribe's
    reservation and our resources are already stretched to their limit.
        2. Office Space and Equipment are Inadequate ($250,000).--The
    Tribe's Law Enforcement program occupies a 10' x 10' cubicle in the
    Tribe's Administration Building. Patrolman Johnson and I must excuse
    ourselves to a private office if we receive a confidential call. Any
    complainant is in full view of the entire office. Privacy and
    confidentiality are important in law enforcement and the lack of both
    inhibits our ability to effectively serve the tribal community. In
    addition to the Tribe's reservation, we also patrol another 1500 acres
    of fee property owned by the Tribe. We do not have a secure radio
    frequency to communicate with and without better equipment, I cannot
    maintain constant radio contact with Officer Johnson throughout his
    patrols. This is not safe and I view this situation as unacceptable. We
    have applied for an FCC license to utilize our own frequency and hope
    to secure the license in the near future. I hope that the Narragansett
    Tribe can access fiscal year 2000 funds for upgrading our radio
    equipment.
        We would also like to acquire a law enforcement office trailer
    which could be housed on the reservation behind the Tribe's
    Administration Building. When properly equipped, including support
    staff, this facility would allow us to better perform our job. In
    addition, we need an additional patrol vehicle and part time dispatcher
    so that both Officer Johnson and I can respond to calls. We recognize
    that improvements in our program must be incremental, based on our
    limited budget, but to be credible to the community we serve, we must
    demonstrate improvement in our law enforcement program each day.
        3. Negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with State
    Officials.--We have made considerable progress in negotiating a joint
    memorandum of understanding with State of Rhode Island and local
    officials concerning areas of mutual concern. I am confident that we
    will resolve remaining differences in the near future. One issue which
    we must resolve with the State is on the issue of tribal access to
    State criminal background check information (BCI), using the RILETS
    system. Access to this data may prove lifesaving. It is critical that
    an MOU be in place soon. My life, the life of Officer Johnson, and the
    lives of the Tribal community we serve may be at risk without it. Only
    through joint cooperation will the Narragansett Tribe and its non-
    Indian neighbors break down barriers of mistrust. Despite our great
    need, I am committed to making the Tribe's law enforcement program the
    best it can be.
        In addition to providing a breakdown of our law enforcement funding
    needs, I am including Uniform Crime Statistics for 1997 for the State
    of Rhode Island of arrests of Native American Indian or Alaska Natives
    as well as the Department of Justice's Standard Compliance Process for
    a safe and effective police department which lists the essential
    components required for a start up law enforcement program.
        In closing, I hope you will assist the Narragansett Indian Tribe
    through increased appropriations. All successful undertakings have the
    same ingredients--determination by those involved and the resources to
    get the job finished. We have the determination. Give us the resources
    and we will finish the job of making Narragansett Law Enforcement an
    example of a well run law enforcement program.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Clarence Alexander, Chairman, Council of
                         Athabascan Tribal Governments
        The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG),\1\ a tribal
    consortium of ten Athabascan Indian Villages in the Yukon Flats,
    Alaska, makes the following recommendations on the fiscal year 2000
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments is a Tribal
    Organization (consortium) of ten Athabascan Indian villages in the
    Yukon Flats, Alaska. The CATG was formed in 1985 during a gathering of
    the Chiefs. Each federally recognized tribe elects its chief according
    to tribal constitution. The Chiefs make up the membership of the CATG.
    The CATG is recognized as a non-profit Tribal Organization for the
    purposes of administering federal, state, and private foundation grants
    and contracts as authorized by the Chiefs. The CATG administrative
    office is located within the Yukon Flats region of the village of Fort
    Yukon.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Repeal of the 3-year moratorium contained in the fiscal year 1999
            Interior Appropriation Act which prohibits Alaska Villages from
            entering into new contracts with the Indian Health Service. We
            oppose any institution of limitations on tribal contracting
            under the Indian Self-Determination Act.
      --Allocation of $200,000 in the Fish and Wildlife Service budget for
            the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments to work with
            USF&WS in assuming some of the services and functions on the
            Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge.
      --Allocation of $200,000 within the Fish and Wildlife Service budget
            for the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments to work with
            USF&WS on the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Yukon
            Flats National Wildlife Refuge.
      --Full funding for IHS and BIA contract support.
        In order to appreciate our budget recommendations--which focus on
    utilization of our own people's knowledge and talents--we provide a
    brief description of our physical environment and our efforts to make
    better lives for ourselves through assumption of activities previously
    done only by outsiders.
        The Gwich'in Athabascan Indian population, of Alaska, occupies
    about 55,000 square miles in the Northern Interior of Alaska on the
    Yukon River drainage--this is 11,000 square miles larger than the state
    of Pennsylvania. The villages are scattered over the vast valley called
    the Yukon Flats--half of them above the Arctic Circle. Villages at the
    Western end of the valley begin the down river transition to the
    Koyukon Athabascan culture. The population in the Yukon Flats, is about
    1,460. All the villages in the valley are isolated--only winter trails
    and rivers connect them. The closest urban center, Fairbanks, is about
    an hour's flight from most villages. Commuter airlines provide the only
    transportation and mail service to Fairbanks. And, although people
    travel between villages by river in the summer, snow machine and dog
    sleds in the winter, they travel, most often, by air. Communication
    between communities is by telephone, facsimile, mail and a 5,000 watt
    public radio station, Gwandak Public Broadcasting, located in the
    largest community--Fort Yukon.
        The Benefits of Indian Self-Determination Contracting Extend Beyond
    BIA and IHS Programs.--Since 1985, more than one hundred jobs have been
    brought back to the Yukon Flats through the Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638 contracting process.
    Many of these jobs were previously held in Fairbanks. Many more
    resulted from our efforts to leverage 638 funds to develop additional
    programs and projects. These jobs represent permanent full time
    employment through the tribes and the tribal consortium we started
    together.
        Approximately $6 million per year is being brought into the Yukon
    Flats because of Public Law 93-638. Add to this the impact of leveraged
    EPA grants, locally contracted water and sewer grants, and locally
    contracted airport improvement grants, and other programs and you will
    find another one to two million dollars. Finally, the capacity of
    tribes to run 638 contracts and maintain clean audits has prepared them
    to take on responsibility for housing under the Native American Housing
    Assistance and Self-Determination Act--something they would not have
    had the confidence to do ten years ago or even five years ago. The
    effect of the stability provided by the 638 process snowballs once the
    tribe is comfortable with the responsibility. We invite you to tour our
    offices and the tribal offices in each village to see this yourself.
        Because of the build up of contracting in the Flats and the
    stability of our administration, the Council has been able to take on a
    $700,000 telecommunications project due to go on line by May, 1999. We
    formed a partnership with the University of Alaska and AT&T to make
    this happen. The project will enable us to save money on telephone and
    fax, provide an intra-net for telemedicine, internet access and dial-up
    access in all of our villages. We couldn't have done this without being
    Self-Determination Act contractors first and having the stability and
    experience created through that process.
        The experience of tribal contracting also results in tribal
    emphasis on development and employment of local human resources.
    Children are observed as potential candidates for higher education and
    future employment with the tribe. Youth are encouraged to return home
    with the skills that they learn ``outside'' to build their homes and
    their lives within the community. In the 1980's, people said our
    villages were dying. Today the population is growing and there is a
    returning sense of purpose and hope.
        We learned from other villages who led the way to contracting in
    Alaska. Many other communities have followed our example. Many more now
    want to follow this path. With all these accomplishments would it have
    been better to be paying our six to ten million dollars for welfare
    instead? How many more suicides would we have had? How many more people
    suffering from substance abuse? We would rather see our people in
    meaningful employment with a future and hope for their children. We
    have learned how to accomplish this. We seek opportunities to continue
    the process.
        Alaska-Specific Health Moratorium.--The fiscal year 1999 Interior
    Appropriations Act contains a provision which prohibits Alaska villages
    who are served by a regional health program from entering into new or
    expanded contracts with the IHS for 3 years (through September 30,
    2002). This is an incredibly counterproductive and discriminatory
    policy, and we urge you to repeal it.
        By statute, tribes in Alaska enjoy the same rights as in the rest
    of the Nation. But the foundations of the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act, inherent tribal rights and authority, and
    informed local decision making are being undermined in Alaska by a
    moratorium that denies tribes in Alaska the same rights as other tribes
    throughout the nation. It dictates to tribes in Alaska who will provide
    health care to their tribal members. Only in Alaska, have we been told
    to adhere to ``economies of scale'' and that we must accomplish this
    through regional entities. This should not be a congressional decision.
        We realize that the primary purpose of IHS and other health care
    programs is the provision of quality health care. However, health care
    also is a very large ``industry'' in this nation and it does provide
    billions of dollars for millions of jobs. In reviewing the Alaska
    situation, we believe that even if every single tribe were to contract
    for locally provided services over the next ten to fifteen years, the
    effect would be to slowly increase the contract support costs a maximum
    of 15 to 20 million dollars per year. Yes, there is a cost for
    increasing local tribal control over locally provided services through
    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act health
    contracting--but it has also been demonstrated by the Indian Health
    Service and tribes that there is a direct relationship between tribal
    contracting and an increase in the quality of health services provided.
        Because of our contracting, our regional health clinic is fully
    staffed for the first time in many years. We no longer depend on
    outside agencies to provide temporary Health Aides in our villages.
    Instead, we have more consistent service because we use our own trained
    workers. We encourage and assist our workers to take distance learning
    classes while on the job and to pursue careers as physician assistants,
    dentists, and doctors. We train people on the job and, if they have to
    leave their community, they have skills to work wherever they go.
        Our tribes have also demonstrated improvement in BIA services
    because of local the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act contracting, and that experience enables the tribes to assume
    responsibility for other programs as well. Out of 43 tribes in the
    Interior of Alaska, only seven tribes in the Yukon Flats and two others
    have fully taken over Public Law 93-638 BIA contracts to provide
    services. These tribes have painstakingly built their administrative
    capacity, and are seeking to assume responsibility for programs as they
    feel prepared to do it. For instance, CATG administers some health
    programs on a regional basis, while other health services--particularly
    those in the preventive and substance abuse areas--are likely
    candidates for village-level contracting. It is unjust to deny them the
    same opportunities open to tribes across the nation to contract for a
    portion of their health services as well. We ask that there be no more
    Alaska specific riders on appropriations or other bills that limit
    tribal authority. We ask that there be no legislative riders that set
    precedents which limit tribal opportunity while posing as solutions. We
    ask that the Alaska-specific moratorium on IHS contracting be lifted.
        Tribal Administration of Activities in the Yukon Flats National
    Wildlife Refuge.--The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments has been
    steadily building capacity in the area of Natural Resources Management.
    Each of the tribal governments in the Yukon Flats has a Natural
    Resources Office and there is also a regional department at CATG. The
    CATG has proposed taking on responsibility for some of the programs,
    functions, services and activities on the Yukon Flats National Wildlife
    Refuge. These lands constitute a large part of the homelands of the
    Gwich'in and Koyukon people who have lived as part of this land for
    thousands of years. Tribal eligibility to take on this responsibility
    exists in law and the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge has been
    listed as one of the non-BIA programs within the Department of Interior
    eligible for tribal management. We refer you to the October 21, 1997
    Federal Register notice in which was published the Interior Secretary's
    Non-BIA Programs Available for fiscal year 1999 Self-Governance
    Agreements--specifically listed is Alaska National Widlife Refuges
    (statewide). The notice also lists eight programs with potentially
    contractible elements. Within this list, numerous opportunities exist
    for our area. Our biologist has identified the following as areas in
    which CATG could contract: habitat management, wildlife survey/studies,
    visitor services/visitor center operations, acquisition/appraisals,
    comprehensive conservation planning, wetland restoration projects,
    building site restoration, fire management, subsistence management,
    contaminants monitoring, cultural resources planning, archaeological
    surveys, cooperative fisheries management and restoration agreements,
    fish collection and tagging.
        Following a recent meeting between CATG and the Regional Fish and
    Wildlife Service Office, USF&WS has agreed to provide us a listing by
    the end of April of activities it is now carrying out which it believes
    could be contracted by CATG. This is an encouraging development.
        And we are also encouraged by legislation, S. 748, introduced on
    March 25, 1999 by Senator Murkowskiwhich is designed to increase the
    hiring and contracting with Alaska Natives by federal agencies in
    Alaska. Senator Murkowski states in his introductory remarks:

              ``Legislation already exists for contracting with and hiring
            Alaska Natives. Sections 1307 and 1308 of the Alaska National
            Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Indian Self-
            Determination and Education Assistance Act are clear on these
            matters. The problem is that the law have been largely ignored.
            . . . Mr. President, the National Park Service, The Bureau of
            Land Management, the Fish and Widlife Service, and other
            agencies within the Interior Department have an opportunity to
            hire and contract with local Alaska Natives who were born and
            live near and in our parks,hazards, they know about living and
            working in arctic conditions. Given the evels of unemployment
            in the area, it makes absolutely no sense not to hire these
            individuals.''

        While the tribes in the Yukon Flats have been able to attain
    employment of about 20 percent of the workforce, the YFNWR poses an
    economic opportunity which could bring this to 40 percent within a few
    short years. We ask that Congressional support be given to this project
    and that funding be allocated in the amount of $200,000 to enable CATG
    to work in partnership with USF&WS and demonstrate our capacity to do
    the work. The budget includes technical staffing, office support and
    travel to develop and design implementation methodologies for contracts
    programs, functions, activities and services.
        Yukon Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plan.--We are deeply
    concerned that the USF&WS has delayed revision of the Comprehensive
    Conservation Plan for the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge until
    July 2006. This is approximately 14 years after the original plan was
    put in place. The Service has indicated that this is due to the small
    planning staff and that because there are 16 national Wildlife Refuges
    in Alaska, the planning process has been prioritized. The CATG has the
    capacity to carry out many aspects of Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    planning process and would like to contract with USF&WS to do this
    work. The CATG requests an allocation of $200,000 to undertake this
    task in collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Funding would
    be used for technical staffing, office support and travel for planning
    staff to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service in designing and
    implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
        Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Stan Rice, Jr., President, Board of Directors,
                             Prescott Indian Tribe
        The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe appreciates the opportunity to
    address the issue of fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the
    United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
    Tribe has reviewed President Clinton's Budget for fiscal year (FY) 2000
    for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
    fully supports the requests made in the President's budget regarding
    these two departments.
        The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe particularly supports the
    continued, and increased, funding of the initiative on Law Enforcement
    in Indian Country. Fiscal year 2000 is the second year of the four-year
    implementation period. The need for improved law enforcement services
    in Indian Country has been widely documented demonstrating that Indian
    citizens residing on Reservations do not receive the minimum level of
    law enforcement services taken for granted in non-Indian communities.
    For example, with an estimated Indian Country population of 1,430,000,
    the police officer to citizen ratio (2.9 officers per 1000 citizens)
    would mandate at least 4,290 police officers, an increase of 50 percent
    over the number of 2000 sworn police officers in Indian Country.
        An example that reflects the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe involves
    the creation of our new Tribal Police Department. Recently, the Tribe
    developed its own Tribal Police Department, with the assistance of a
    Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services grant. We
    are sure that you are aware of the high cost of establishing a police
    department. While we gladly received grant funds for the police
    officers' salaries, the Tribe was financially responsible for the
    purchasing of all equipment associated with the new police department.
    It proved to be very expensive and we are still acquiring equipment for
    our Tribal Police Department. Continued, and additional, funding for
    Law Enforcement in Indian Country will guarantee the Tribe the
    opportunity to receive funding or pursue grant funds to continue the
    development of the Tribal Police Department.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Law Enforcement Initiative was
    formulated in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
    ensure maximum usage of the Federal dollar. Working together, the BIA
    and DOJ's respective budget requests complement each other, to ensure
    that efforts are not duplicated and funding can be provided to Tribes
    on a more expansive basis. It is essential that the next step of the
    improvements to law enforcement be funded in the fiscal year 2000
    Appropriations Act.
        We would also like to bring to your attention the critical need for
    Road Construction and Road Maintenance funding for Indian lands. Tribes
    cannot be successful in pursuing or developing economic development
    without adequate transportation systems. While the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs has received a slight increase nationally in road construction
    funds from the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
    21), the funding for the tribes under the jurisdiction of the BIA
    Phoenix Area Office has decreased by more than 50 percent from the
    funding provided under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
    Act (ISTEA). The funding for the BIA Phoenix Area was reduced from $26
    million per year to $16 million per year. This cut drastically
    curtailed the number of projects that could be developed by Native
    Americans in the BIA Phoenix Area Office.
        The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe has one street, Slaughterhouse
    Canyon Street, to construct over the next five (5) years at a cost of
    four (4) to five (5) million dollars. The BIA has advised us that our
    fair share of the TEA-21 funds for the next five years totals only
    $143,000. Obviously, at this rate, it will take the Tribe forty (40)
    years before we can build this single street. This is totally
    inadequate and does not meet the actual needs of our Tribe.
        The Tribe requests a one-time appropriation of $1.2 million to
    construct the Slaughterhouse Canyon Street. This street will provide an
    alternative route around the most dangerous intersection in Prescott
    and will be utilized by Tribal members and Prescott city members. It
    will also serve as access to our planned Tribal museum and various
    administrative and commercial development on our Reservation. This road
    is instrumental to the economic stability of the Tribe and its Tribal
    members.
        BIA Road Maintenance funds are also critically inadequate to
    provide even the most basic maintenance of the roads and streets in
    Indian Country. Highway standards are not being met on the large
    majority of Reservation lands. Tribes do not receive any of the Highway
    Users Roads Funds (HURF) collected through taxes collected by states
    and counties on the sale of motor fuels, even though the Tribes and
    Tribal members pay such taxes in most states. The Yavapai-Prescott
    Tribe receives only $10,000 per year from the BIA for maintenance and
    upkeep of all the streets and roads on our Reservation. As a result,
    they continue to deteriorate which makes the road construction
    investments short-lived, not to mention the dangerous driving
    conditions that develop because of the deteriorated condition.
        If you require additional information, please contact me at 520-
    445-8790, ext. 33. The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe appreciates your
    listening to our concerns and problems, and also, appreciate your
    efforts to improve the standards of living in Indian Country.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
        The Nez Perce Tribe is requesting the following funding amounts for
    fiscal year 2000 which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe:
      --$150,000 through the BIA for the Nez Perce Tribe to conduct a
            feasibility study and economic impact analysis to build a
            Cultural Center in conjunction with the Lewis and Clark
            Bicentennial;
      --$737,050 under the BIA's water rights negotiation and litigation
            program within Indian Rights Protection for negotiation and
            litigation of the Snake River Basin Adjudication;
      --$450,000 for our Gray Wolf Recovery Program through the Fish and
            Wildlife Service;
      --$385,000 through the BIA's Indian Child Welfare Grant Program,
            Welfare Assistance Program and 638 Contract Administration
            Costs for Tribal Social Services Programs;
      --$200,000 through the BIA for Tribal involvement in the Federal
            Energy Regulatory Commission's re-licensing of Idaho Power's
            Hells Canyon Complex; and
      --$1.2 million for equipment and $3.3 million for staffing through
            IHS under a joint venture arrangement
        In addition to the Nez Perce Tribe's specific requests, the Tribe
    supports the following increases set out in the President's fiscal year
    2000 budget requests for tribal programs in the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Indian Health Service and other agencies of the Department of
    the Interior:
      --support for the $20 million increase requested for BIA law
            enforcement;
      --support for the $5 million increase for fiscal year 2000 to expand
            the Indian Land Consolidation Pilot Project through the Office
            of Special Trustee;
      --support for the increase of $17 million for the Tribal Priority
            Allocation account in the BIA over the fiscal year 1999 enacted
            level;
      --support for the fiscal year 2000 increase of $170 million for IHS,
            which does address pay-related cost increases, population
            growth, and staffing at new facilities;
      --support for $500,000, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, for
            consultation with tribes as part of the Secretarial Order
            related to tribal treaty rights and the ESA; and
      --support for the $250,000 requested for Columbia River fishing
            access sites built by the Army Corps of Engineers.
             lewis and clark bicentennial observance--bia, $150,000
        With the upcoming Lewis and Clark Bicentennial, the Nez Perce wish
    to tell their own story of the Corps of Discovery led by Lewis and
    Clark. The Nez Perce saved the Lewis and Clark expedition from
    starvation, as well as giving them food and supplies for their journey.
    Despite the contributions of the Nez Perce, only individual states have
    been funded to prepare for the upcoming Bicentennial. The Tribe would
    like to be included in the observance to help people recognize our
    efforts to the Lewis and Clark expedition and our contributions to the
    Pacific Northwest.
        The Nez Perce Tribe, working with the State of Idaho, through the
    Governor's Committee on the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial, have agreed
    to jointly support the development of a Nez Perce Cultural Interpretive
    Center to be located on the Nez Perce Indian reservation. The State has
    ranked this project number two as part of their overall strategic plan
    for the Lewis and Clark Observance. We have already spent a significant
    amount of our own funds on a preliminary study that dealt with the
    development of the architectural design and potential site locations.
    Based on this study, the Tribe has designated Tribal land for the
    Cultural Center. The Cultural Center will include an exhibit specific
    to the Corps of Discovery and their interaction with the Nez Perce
    people.
        The Nez Perce Tribe is requesting $150,000 for fiscal year 2000,
    through the BIA, to go towards the second phase which will provide a
    more detailed economic analysis for the Cultural Center, as well as
    provide support staff in developing a comprehensive strategy for the
    Lewis and Clark Observance with other local, state and federal
    agencies.
       snake river basin adjudication negotiations funding--bia, $737,050
        The Nez Perce Tribe has been involved in the Snake River Basin
    Adjudication (SRBA), the largest water rights adjudication in the
    country, since that proceeding was statutorily mandated by the Idaho
    Legislature in 1987. The SRBA is a general stream adjudication in which
    all the water rights in the Snake River basin (approximately 185,000
    claims) will be determined. The Snake River basin encompasses
    approximately two-thirds of the geographic area of the State of Idaho,
    and much of the basin lies within the aboriginal territory of the Nez
    Perce Tribe. We are represented in this proceeding by our in-house
    counsel and the Native American Rights Fund in Boulder, Colorado.
        In December of 1998, the SRBA Court ordered the parties to the Nez
    Perce claims into mediation. For fiscal year 2000, the Nez Perce Tribe
    is asking that $737,050 be made available in the BIA's Indian Rights
    Protection account for Water Rights Negotiation and Litigation to
    enable the Tribe to continue its participation in the SRBA. These funds
    will cover the cost of vital, on-going work by fisheries, economic,
    historical, and engineering experts, as well as necessary attorney
    costs and overhead expenses.
                      wolf recovery program--fws, $450,000
        The Nez Perce Tribe is in its fourth year of participation in the
    Wolf Recovery Program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
    Through a contract with the FWS, the Tribe produced and is implementing
    a Service-approved recovery plan for the Gray Wolf in Central Idaho,
    which requires documentation of ten breeding pairs for three
    consecutive years. The 35 wolves released in 1995-1996 have grown into
    a population of 12 packs containing a minimum of 115 animals and ten of
    those packs produced a total of 51 pups in 1998.
        The Nez Perce Tribe appreciates the support that Congress gave the
    program by mandating a funding increase for fiscal year 1998, which put
    the program up to $300,000. However, due to the large population
    increase, the program remains underfunded. The wolf population consists
    mainly of young animals which have started to disperse, and have even
    shown up 230 miles away in Oregon. The dispersing animals can be
    expected to seek unoccupied territory to settle in, and will now begin
    to affect people and communities, that were previously not impacted by
    the wolf recovery effort. The funding shortfall threatens the Tribe's
    ability to adequately monitor movements of the wolves scattered
    throughout 15 million acres and beyond, investigate depredations, trap
    and collar animals, document reproduction, purchase additional collars
    and radios, gather data on food habits, and answer questions about the
    impact of wolves on ungulates and cattle.
        The ranchers and citizens of Idaho, and surrounding states, have
    every right to expect the Tribe and the FWS to monitor these wolves, as
    well as provide services and support. For the reasons set out above,
    the Nez Perce Tribe is requesting an increase of $150,000 for a total
    of $450,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the Tribe's Wolf Recovery Program,
    through the FWS.
                 tribal social services program--bia, $385,000
        The Nez Perce Tribe has contracted from the BIA, through a 638
    contract, to run the Social Services Program, which administers many
    different tribal assistance programs. Since that time, services to
    individuals on the reservation have increased threefold, while the
    funding levels for contract support costs have decreased each year. The
    Tribe's established share for contract Administration costs for fiscal
    year 2000 is $132,000, $2,500 less than last year. Since the funding
    levels are not keeping up with the increasing numbers of children and
    people needing assistance, this seriously jeopardizes the Tribe's
    Social Services Department from updating equipment, hiring more staff
    and adequately meeting the needs of their members and the assistance
    programs they operate.
        Indian Child Welfare and BIA Welfare Assistance are just two Social
    Service's programs the Tribe operates. The Indian Child Welfare Program
    tries to prevent the break up of Indian families, as well handle child
    abuse and neglect cases, court interventions and foster care placement.
    Due to the Tribe's share for the Indian Child Welfare Program being
    $52,495 for fiscal year 2000, there is only one child welfare worker to
    provide services to the 75 families and children in crisis that
    currently receive services under this program. The BIA Welfare
    Assistance Program the Tribe runs services 430 cases under this
    program, yet it will only receive $124,000 for fiscal year 2000, $2,500
    less than fiscal year 1999. For these reasons, the Tribe is requesting
    an increase of $28,000, for 638 contract Administration costs, an
    increase of $22,505 for Indian Child Welfare, and an increase of
    $26,000 for Welfare Assistance, for a total funding level of $385,000
    for fiscal year 2000, through the BIA.
                      ferc dam relicensing--bia, $200,000
        The Hells Canyon Complex is a series of three dams (Hells Canyon,
    Oxbow, and Brownlee) owned by Idaho Power Corporation on the Snake
    River along the Oregon-Idaho border. The Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC) is empowered to license all non-federal dams,
    including the Hells Canyon Complex. These licenses last 50 years and
    are subject to terms imposed by FERC, including the development of
    protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures to address all aspects
    of dam impacts, including effects on cultural sites, wildlife, and
    fisheries. Rather than pursuing a traditional relicensing process which
    involves considerable litigation, Idaho Power has elected to create a
    collaborative process to involve many stakeholders throughout all
    phases of the relicensing process.
        Hell's Canyon has significant historic, cultural, and natural
    resources important to the Nez Perce Tribe, and so the Tribe has been a
    participant in the relicensing process since it ensued in 1996. Other
    than travel reimbursement funds from Idaho Power, there has been no
    direct funding available to the Tribe to participate in the FERC
    process. Funding provided to the Tribe would ensure continued
    participation in the relicensing, and would allow Tribal technical
    representatives to work with resource groups that design studies
    focused on dam impacts and assist Idaho Power in the development of
    protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. For these reasons,
    the Tribe is requesting $200,000 for fiscal year 2000, through the BIA,
    to participate in the FERC relicensing of the Hells Canyon Complex.
                    joint venture funding--ihs, $4.5 million
        Congress recognized that the existing system for funding the
    replacement of health care facilities under the IHS Facilities Priority
    Construction List does not work for most tribes. It is difficult for
    our Tribe to make that priority list due to the criteria the IHS
    utilizes for new facility construction. Congress has authorized ``Joint
    Venture'' programs under the IHS which provides that tribes who
    construct their own facilities with their own resources could count on
    the IHS to provide staffing and new equipment, as long as the tribe
    provides the facility under a no-cost lease agreement to IHS.
        The Nez Perce Tribe has elected to construct replacement clinics at
    Kamiah and Lapwai, Idaho, as both clinics have been designated in need
    of replacement. Both clinics are too small and are experiencing severe
    maintenance problems. The Tribe will provide the land and construction
    costs. The Nez Perce Tribe seeks funding from IHS for staffing and new
    equipment for these facilities, which we hope to be completed by the
    end of fiscal year 1999. The estimated cost for start-up equipment for
    both of the facilities is $1.2 million and the annual recurring amount
    is $3.3 million.

                            items of general support
    BIA law enforcement
        Due to this Subcommittee's funding increase in fiscal year 1999 for
    BIA Law Enforcement, the Nez Perce Tribe was able to increase its
    patrol officers from 6 to 12. Despite this increase, we are still short
    of the minimum 17 patrol officers it would take to perform patrol
    duties around the clock. Also, we still do not have the manpower to
    staff a Communications-Dispatch center that would require a staff of 7,
    or an Adult and Juvenile Detention Center, which would require a staff
    of 13. Since the Nez Perce Tribal Police Department provides normal and
    emergency services to both Indians and non-Indians citizens within the
    Reservation, the Administration's request for a $20 million increase
    for BIA Law Enforcement is badly needed. For these reasons, we strongly
    urge additional funds be provided to tribes, through the BIA, for law
    enforcement, to be used for personnel, equipment and basic detention
    services within the BIA's Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account.
    Indian land consolidation program
        We support the $5 million increase, for a total of $10 million for
    fiscal year 2000, the Administration has requested through the Office
    of Special Trustee, for expansion of the BIA's Indian Land
    Consolidation Program. Currently, only three tribes are involved in the
    pilot program this year which was set up to help tribes consolidate
    fractionated interests in Indian trust lands. With an increase of $5
    million in fiscal year 2000, this will allow for more tribes to
    participate in this program to address the ever-increasing problem of
    trust land fractionation.
    IHS cost increases
        We support the $174 million increase for fiscal year 2000 the
    Administration has requested for Indian Health Service over the fiscal
    year 1999 enacted level. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 request
    recognizes the yearly rising costs associated with Indian health
    facilities by targeting $34 million for population growth and pay-
    related cost increases, and an additional $8.6 million for staffing at
    new facilities. Pay-related costs and population growth increase each
    year and yet, usually get overlooked in the funding process. Also, as
    tribal populations grow, the need for new facilities and people to
    staff those facilities increase as well.
    Tribal priority allocations (TPA)
        We appreciate that the Administration continues to provide
    additional resources through the Tribal Priority Allocations account to
    assist tribal governments to address basic necessities and critical
    services within our communities. The President's fiscal year 2000
    budget proposes an increase of $17 million over the fiscal year 1999
    enacted level. While much of this proposed increase is for specific
    programs, rather than a general increase to base funding of all tribes,
    we support additional funds for TPA in fiscal year 2000.
    In-lieu sites
        We also support the $250,000 requested by the BIA to implement the
    terms of the 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between the BIA and the Corps
    of Engineers for Columbia River fishing access sites built by the
    Corps. In that Memorandum, the Corps committed $250,000 annually for
    the costs of law enforcement, operation and maintenance, training and
    other maintenance needs.
    ESA secretarial order
        The Nez Perce Tribe supports the $500,000, through the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the Administration has requested for consultation
    with tribes as part of the Secretarial Order addressing the
    relationship of tribal treaty rights and the Endangered Species Act.
        Thank you for your consideration of the Nez Perce Tribe's
    appropriation requests for fiscal year 2000.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
        The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) located in
    Portland, Oregon submits the following recommendations regarding the
    fiscal year 2000 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services
    Budgets and those agencies data-gathering efforts as they relate to
    child welfare and childrens mental health services. Our comments will
    focus on the following budget items and requests:
        1. Increase by $3.0 million ($15.9 million) the BIA fiscal year
    2000 Budget Request relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act under the
    Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget category.
        2. Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),
    Title II off-reservation grant programs ($2.0 million) which was funded
    through fiscal year 1996 under the Special Projects and Pooled Overhead
    portion of the BIA budget, but is not identified in the
    Administration's request for fiscal year 2000.
        3. Require the BIA and IHS to provide more detailed information all
    programs that provide funding/services for children. This information
    is needed to accurately identify the need for these programs and how
    BIA and IHS budget requests respond to that need. The recommendations
    pertain to the tribal ICWA, Title II grant programs under TPA and the
    IHS Mental Health and Social Services and Contract Health Services
    budget categories (specific recommendations described below and in the
    conclusion section of testimony.)
                             organizational profile
         The National Indian Child Welfare Association is based in
    Portland, Oregon and provides a broad range of services including, (1)
    training and technical assistance for tribal and urban Indian child
    welfare professionals, (2) consultation on mental health and child fare
    program development, (3) by request, facilitation of child abuse and
    neglect community prevention activities and (4) analysis and
    dissemination of public policy information that impacts Indian children
    and families. NICWA does not receive any BIA or IHS funds. We have a
    strict policy that prohibits us from applying for or receiving any
    funds that would otherwise benefit tribal programs. Our constituents
    are tribal governments and urban Indian child welfare programs
    throughout the United States. Our organization works closely with the
    Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and National Congress of
    American Indians as well as having members of the Indian Child Welfare
    Committees of both organizations. This will be our seventh year in
    providing both oral and written testimony to the Subcommittee.
                                 measuring need
        Under TPA tribes are essentially provided a block grant from which
    they must fund a broad variety of services. Under this system, tribes
    must make decisions about which services they can fund and at what
    level. This often involves transferring funding from one financially
    strapped service to another, even though both services are overwhelmed
    by the human need they face. The BIA looks at this transfer as a
    measure of decreased need, which they use when developing their budget
    request. This provides only an artificial measurement of need. Using
    this method, Congress and the Administration will never know what the
    actual need for any program under TPA is and how well appropriated
    funds are doing in trying to meet that need.
        Data provided to Congress should accurately describe human need,
    not just budget priorities. Amazingly, the BIA has been allowed to
    provide only superficial data to justify budget requests. For example,
    it is virtually impossible to know how many clients receive child
    welfare services, what kind of services are provided, what the outcomes
    were from services provided and how need for child welfare services
    compares to the level of services being funded. One improvement made by
    the BIA is the inclusion of data in their justification regarding child
    abuse and neglect referrals from 1992-1996 and the impact of continued
    high rates of poverty and unemployment in Indian Country upon referrals
    for child abuse and neglect--increasing referrals (see page BIA-55).
    The caseload data on page BIA-56 is a potentially helpful addition, but
    the numbers only reflect the need that was met through the provision of
    services. The numbers provide no comparison to the actual or unmet need
    for these types of services. This explains why the caseload numbers for
    Child Welfare Assistance have remained the same for several years. The
    number by itself is virtually meaningless, unless you can compare it to
    the actual number of placements needed, not just those funded. The
    implication here is that the BIA is meeting all of the need, which
    could not be further from the truth, especially when you consider the
    information on page BIA-55.
        Another important factor in determining the need for child welfare
    funding is tribal access to other program services and funding. Of the
    top four federal sources of child welfare funding guaranteed to states
    under the Social Security Act (Title IV-B subparts 1 & 2, Title IV-E
    and Title XX) tribes only have guaranteed access to one, Title IV-B
    subpart 1 Child Welfare Services, and the amounts of funding available
    from this source for tribes are extremely limited (approximately $5.0
    million projected for fiscal year 2000). Tribes, unlike states, have no
    authority to access the full array of federal funds that are needed to
    provide comprehensive child welfare services.
        This situation, combined with dwindling state resources, lack of
    state expertise in serving Indian families and states' reluctance to
    enter into agreements for the provision of services in Indian
    communities based on financial and jurisdictional issues, has created a
    serious crisis for tribes in their efforts to protect their children
    and establish permanency and stability for those children who need
    help. It is worth noting that the BIA has developed a mistaken and
    sometimes cynical sense of what opportunities are available for tribes
    who are trying to piece together child welfare services. At a BIA
    meeting in early February, where the needs of tribes were being
    reviewed, it was suggested that the BIA also include in their analysis
    those programs that could benefit Indian children, but excluded tribes
    from eligibility. The response from Deborah Maddox, BIA Director of
    Tribal Services, was that tribes could form agreements with states to
    access these federal programs, but that many tribes did not want to.
    This is an absurd statement. Tribes across the country are interested
    in or actively pursuing these types of services agreements, but are
    often met with reluctance by state governments. For several years now,
    NICWA and other tribal advocates have attempted to get the BIA to work
    more closely with the Administration for Children and Families in an
    effort to get greater access to federal child welfare and stimulate
    tribal/state agreements, but the BIA continues to act as if there is
    nothing to be done. We think that more can and should be done by the
    BIA in this area.
                         tribal child welfare programs
        Our first observation is that the program description contained in
    the BIA budget justification for Indian Child Welfare Act services is
    misleading (see page BIA-53) in that it makes the program sound much
    more substantial than it really is. In reality, the funding from this
    program only allows the vast majority of tribes enough money to fund a
    social work position or two and the basics needed to keep an of rice
    running (utilities, phone, fax, office supplies). More comprehensive
    services that provide clothing and shelter are rarely provided with
    these funds. The primary purpose of the tribal grant program is to help
    tribes respond to child abuse and neglect referrals, strengthen
    families where child abuse or neglect is present and address the
    permanency needs of children who have been removed from their homes. We
    all wish the program were more extensive, but $13 million doesn't go
    very far for 558 tribes.
        Until fiscal year 1993 tribes had been forced to compete for child
    welfare funding from year to year. This competitive process was
    extremely disruptive and in most years only allowed approximately 50
    percent of the tribes nationwide to receive any child welfare funding.
    Improvements in the grant process and small increases to ICWA in
    previous years and greater access to Title IV-B funding have enhanced
    tribal access to child welfare funding, but there is still a need to
    continue efforts to make more funds available to address child abuse
    and neglect. Efforts should include a more careful and accurate
    analysis of the child welfare needs of tribes by the BIA for purposes
    of budgetary recommendation. This analysis should be based on more than
    just population figures and how tribes are able to prioritize their
    limited TPA funds. It should include data on types of services
    provided, how many children and families receive these services, number
    of out-of-home placements of Indian children, type of out-of-home
    placement, length of time in out-of-home care, and numbers of children
    who are able to secure permanence through reunification, guardianship,
    kinship/relative care or adoption.
        Other factors that deserve careful analysis include tribal access
    to other child welfare funding or services and the relative costs of
    providing basic child welfare services on tribal lands. This is
    meaningful data that can provide Congress with an accurate definition
    of need.
        The most recent research on risk assessment of child abuse for
    Indian children indicates that 34.4 percent of Indian children are at
    risk for abuse or neglect (1993 National Indian Justice Center Study on
    Indian child maltreatment funded by the Indian Health Service). Many
    other documented indicators of the need for these services are also
    highly visible in many Indian communities such as extreme poverty and
    high rates of substance abuse.
                     off-reservation icwa, title ii grants
        Off-reservation programs can provide a number of important services
    to both tribes, states, and individual Indian children and families.
    The ICWA does not make a distinction between who should benefit from
    the act and is designed to protect Indian children and families
    everywhere. Arguably, Indian children living outside of their tribal
    community are some of the most vulnerable Indian children to stressors
    that are linked to risk for abuse and neglect. These off-reservation
    programs, where they have been able to exist, can provide key linkages
    to tribes when their members become involved in state child welfare
    systems. All of which are designed to meet the purpose of the Indian
    Child Welfare Act. Some common services that these programs can provide
    include:
      --At the request of tribes, provide case advocacy or other services,
            such as foster care, to tribal children who do not live on the
            reservation and whose tribe may not even be in the state.
      --Act as a resource to state agencies, courts and private agencies by
            providing training on how to provide more cost-effective
            services.
      --Recruiting and licensing Indian foster and adoptive families, an
            activity that states often do not have resources for and are
            not successful at.
        Off-reservation programs have suffered from the instability of
    inadequate funds and a competitive grants process. Historically,
    funding levels for off-reservation ICWA programs have been between $1.5
    to $2.0 million. This has enabled the BIA to minimally fund about 40
    programs a year which serve 65 percent of the Indian population that
    live primarily in urban settings. These programs have also tried to
    access private foundation funding and state contracts to supplement
    their ICWA grants. However, these funds have been increasingly
    difficult to secure, especially in light of increased competition for
    these resources due to reductions in state and federal funding.
        We also know that many of these children may be served by state
    child welfare agencies at some point. Because of the small number of
    off-reservation ICWA programs operating in the United States, many of
    these children in urban areas are at great risk for not receiving
    needed services or protections. This seems especially relevant when you
    consider the budgetary problems that states are experiencing that
    result in minimal resources for staff training and services in general.
                             mental health services
        One of the best assessments of the current status of mental health
    services for Indian children is contained in a report that NICWA
    published in 1996 entitled, ``American Indian Children's Mental Health
    Services: An Assessment of Tribal Access to Children's Mental Health
    Funding and a Review of Tribal Mental Health Programs.'' We have
    provided a complimentary copy for the committee to review. The report
    details issues affecting access to mental health services, current
    funding sources, an original survey of tribal mental health providers,
    profiles of four tribal mental health service systems, barriers to
    access of mental health services and compilation of recommendations for
    improving access to services.
        Three issues we believe are of great importance to the committee's
    consideration of our request are (1) IHS system of mental health
    service delivery is primarily geared to adults (see statistics on page
    4 and 15-17 of the report and IHS-45), (2) it is difficult, if not
    impossible, to identify how much of the IHS funding under the Mental
    Health and Social Services and Contract Health Services budget
    categories go to mental health service, particularly mental health
    services to children and (3) IHS admits in their own budget request
    that they are not able to meet the current need with available
    resources (see page IHS-45). Our best sense, based on findings in our
    report, is that children receive few mental health services funded by
    IHS. We therefore recommend that the committee require IHS to provide
    data detailing the level of funding from Mental Health and Social
        Services and Contract Health Services that supports mental health
    services for Indian children.
                                   conclusion
        Tribal child welfare programs are a valuable resource shown to be
    extremely effective in protecting Indian children and strengthening
    Indian families. A study in 1988 commissioned by the Department of
    Health and Human Services and Department of Interior entitled, ``Indian
    Child Welfare: A Status Report,'' revealed that tribal programs
    outperformed the BIA and state child welfare programs, notwithstanding
    the limited funding available to tribes. Specifically, Indian children
    in substitute care had shorter stays in foster care and higher rates of
    permanency when served by tribal programs. In 1994 the Office of
    Inspector General issued a report entitled, ``Opportunities for ACE to
    Improve Child Welfare Services and Protection for Native American
    Children,'' which clearly showed that most states were either not
    willing or able to share federal funds for child welfare services with
    tribes. This clearly demonstrates that tribes, when provided
    opportunity, are able providers of child welfare services, while
    currently not being able to depend on state funding sources or
    services.
        We must also take into consideration other factors which impact the
    ability of tribes and off-reservation programs to protect their
    children and give them a sense of permanence. Because of welfare reform
    and recent child welfare reform, states have additional pressures to
    target their resources carefully. This will most likely mean that
    states' historic reluctance to provide services on tribal lands will
    continue and possibly get worse. If tribes are not given the adequate
    resources, then Indian children will likely continue to be the most
    unprotected class of children in this country with the least access to
    services that help provide permanency.
        The National Indian Child Welfare Association requests that the
    subcommittee recommend the requests we have made in our testimony. They
    are as follows:
      --Increase by $3.0 million ($15.9 million) the BIA fiscal year 2000
            Budget Request relating to Indian Child Welfare Act by under
            the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget category.
      --Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
            II Off-Reservation grant programs ($2.0 Million) which was
            funded through fiscal year 1996 under the Special Projects and
            Pooled Overhead portion of the BIA budget, but is not
            identified in the Administration's request for fiscal year
            2000.
      --Require the BIA to provide adequate child welfare data to Congress.
            Some examples of this data are types of services provided, how
            many children and families received these services, number of
            out-of-home placements of Indian children, type of out-of-home
            placement, length of time in out-of-home care and number of
            children who are able to secure permanence through family
            reunification, guardianship, relative/kinship care or adoption.
      --Require the IHS to provide data detailing the level of funding from
            Mental Health and Social Services and Contract Health Services
            budget categories that supports mental health services for
            Indian children.
        Please consider these requests carefully and help tribal
    governments and off-reservation ICWA programs continue to offer proven,
    effective programs for Indian children and families.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Kenneth C. Hansen, Chairman, Samish Indian Tribe
                              of Washington State
        On behalf of the members of the Samish Indian Nation I would like
    to first thank the committee for the opportunity to submit written
    testimony. This request is directed at two programs under the
    jurisdiction of the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    The Samish Indian Nation requests the Congress to legislatively re-
    establish all of the Samish Treaty Rights, which will be at no cost to
    the government. Secondly, the Samish Indian Nation hereby requests that
    money be appropriated for the purchase and establishment of a land base
    sufficient for the wants and needs of the Samish people, with
    authorization to take such land into trust status as a reservation. The
    cost of this land acquisition could vary but would not exceed ten
    million dollars. As chairman of the Samish Indian Nation I am
    submitting this testimony to you without the assistance of any
    Washington DC based legal or lobbying firm. The fact that we have no
    resources to pay for those professional services does not negate the
    seriousness of our requests. We are concerned that we have no one to
    knock on your doors and focus attention to our needs. It is my sincere
    hope that you, as members of Congress, will elevate our request and
    give it the attention that it so rightly deserves.
        Samish is in the worst of all possible worlds. We won a decision in
    the courts on re-recognition. With recognition should come our original
    treaty rights, and the reservation promised in that treaty. However, we
    have been unsuccessful in getting the legal assistance to pursue re-
    instatement of treaty rights. We have no land, no treaty rights.
    Housing and Urban Development funding is based on past housing, which
    we do not have. The Public Law 93-638 contracting moratorium was
    passed, just as Samish was beginning the contracting process, which has
    put the Tribe another year behind other tribes in program and economic
    development. When you are already 30 years behind, additional delays
    are unconscionable.
        Let me tell you the story of the small administrative error that
    created 30 years of untold hardship and grief for members of the Samish
    Indian Nation. The error was the inadvertent omission of the Samish
    Indian Tribe from the list of Federally recognized tribes prepared by
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1969, in spite of the fact that Samish
    was on the draft list first prepared in 1966. No one was able to
    explain, legally or otherwise, how or why it happened. It took 26 years
    of struggle to expose the truth.
                                 treaty rights
        The home territory of the Samish Indian Nation, since the beginning
    of time, is an area approximately 70 miles north/northwest of the city
    of Seattle in an area that is now referred to as the San Juan Islands.
    We are members of the Coast Salish Language group, as are the
    neighboring tribes. Further, like our neighboring tribes, we were party
    to the Treaty of Point Elliott which was negotiated in 1855 and
    ratified by the Senate in 1859 (12 Stat. 927). In 1931 the U.S. Court
    of Claims held in the Duwamish et al Indians v. U.S. that the Samish
    were a party to the Treaty of Point Elliott, as did the Indian Claims
    Commission in Docket 261 that the Samish Tribe were the successors in
    interest to the treaty signing Samish.
        These two judicial entities had no apparent legal difficulty in
    recognizing Samish's lawful claim to exercise its Treaty rights.
    Although the tribe was never given their reservation land base, it was
    promised under the treaty of Point Elliott, we were none the less
    afforded the opportunity to exercise our treaty rights on the same
    basis as neighboring tribes. Many of our members held BIA issued ``Blue
    Cards'', which allowed them to exercise their hunting and fishing
    rights without a license from the State of Washington.
        As Department of the Interior administrative law judge David
    Torbett held in 1994, and later reaffirmed by federal district court
    Judge Thomas Zilly in 1995, that the Samish have always been a
    federally recognized tribe and appeared on the list of federally
    recognized tribes prepared by the BIA in 1966. As Bureau employees
    later testified, they had no idea how the Samish ``fell off'' the list
    of recognized tribes when it was published in 1969.
        In 1974 we intervened in U.S. v. Washington, the Boldt fishing
    rights case. This was litigation aimed at determining who should be
    able to exercise treaty rights. The federal government opposed our
    intervention because they said we were not a recognized tribe. This
    determination was not made based on published standards, federal
    witnesses later testified that it was a seat-of-the-pants decision made
    on a personal level. In 1979, by the then aging and ill Judge Boldt
    signed proposed findings of fact submitted by the Justice Department,
    without any changes or alterations, and held that the Samish as a non-
    recognized tribe were not eligible to exercise their treaty rights. In
    1981 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned
    Judge Boldt's decision, but then substituted their own six-point
    criteria to determine if a tribe was eligible to exercise its treaty
    rights. The factual record on appeal was not fully developed to address
    these new criteria. Rather than remand the case to the lower federal
    court to develop new evidence, the Ninth Circuit applied the new
    criteria to the old evidence and held that Samish was not eligible to
    exercise our treaty rights.
        The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari only when the U.S.
    Solicitor General, Rex Lee, promised that if the Samish Tribe were
    successful in obtaining political recognition then the United States
    would have to take a new look at the case. The time for that new look
    is now. By satisfying the standards for recognition the Samish Indian
    Nation has necessarily satisfied the criteria for exercise of treaty
    rights.
        We are requesting that the Congress either include language in the
    Interior Appropriation legislation to either:
        1. Restore our full treaty status and all treaty rights under the
    Treaty of Point Elliott. This is our preference. This option would save
    the cost of endless years of litigation and appeals.
        2. Request the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of Justice
    to immediately file in federal district court to reopen the Samish
    portion of the proceedings of U.S. v. Washington.
                                land acquisition
        This is a very simple issue, with a very simple solution. Samish
    was promised a reservation under the Treaty of Point Elliott, and no
    such reservation was ever created. Without a land base our people have
    been forced to relocate further and further away from the heartland of
    Samish territory. We are seeking from Congress fiscal year 2000
    appropriations language that includes up to ten million dollars for the
    acquisition of lands for residential, cultural and, economic
    development purposes within the land acquisition boundaries as set
    forth by resolution number 99-01-07, passed by the Samish Indian Nation
    Tribal Council on January 18, 1999. And we further request that the
    Secretary of the Interior be authorized to take such land immediately
    into trust as a reservation for the Tribe.
        We request that the Congress direct the Department of the Interior
    to immediately commence working with the Samish Indian Nation to create
    a homeland sufficient for the social, educational, cultural and
    economic needs of the Samish people. This can be accomplished through
    land purchases, land trades with state, other federal and private
    individuals.
        The Samish Indian Nation is dedicated to learning from the mistakes
    that other tribes have historically made in creating their tribal
    communities. This is a once in a millennium opportunity for this tribe,
    to do it right from the very beginning; to create an attractive
    community that will seek to bring back members of the Samish Indian
    Nation from all walks of life, from all educational backgrounds, and
    from all income levels. The Tribe is committed to creating a healthy
    community from the very beginning. With a land base that will allow the
    creation of a healthy and balanced community the Tribe can prevent the
    replication of avoidable mistakes.
                                   conclusion
        The two requests that we have made in this testimony are simple,
    clear, and concise. The Samish Indian Nation is morally, legally, and
    equitably entitled to these requests. They are not complicated. They
    represent the initial two priorities that the Samish Indian Nation has
    to regain our full tribal status. We did not create this situation that
    we find ourselves in, but we have always responded to it with great
    dignity and truth. Unfortunately most of the time we were never given
    the same courtesy by the staff of the Department of the Interior or the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. The federal government's conduct even
    resulted in their Solicitor, Mr. Scott Keep, being held in contempt by
    Judge Thomas Zilly. We are simply asking congress to step up to the
    plate and work with us while we attempt to heal our people and our
    Tribe from what was simply an administrative error. Thank you for your
    attention to these requests and if you have any questions or require
    additional information please contact me through the tribal offices at
    360-293-6404.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Victor R. Preston, Chairman, Susanville Indian
                                   Rancheria
        We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns concerning
    the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget Request for the Indian Health
    Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Susanville Indian
    Rancheria (SIR) provides health care to more than 2,000 Native American
    beneficiaries located in Lassen County in Northern California. Since
    1986, when the SIR first began contracting with the Indian Health
    Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), we have
    continuously improved the quality, quantity, and scope of health care
    services and other services to eligible Native Americans located in our
    service area. The increasing levels of all services that we have been
    able to provide are directly related to the amount of resources which
    Congress makes available both to the IHS and the BIA.
        The SIR's aim is self-sufficiency and independence while promoting
    cooperation and collaboration with other Tribes, organizations, local,
    state, and Federal sectors of the larger society. Moreover, there is
    the expressed determination to preserve what is possible of a precious
    heritage and cultural identity. The SIR has contracted for over
    thirteen years under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act, P. L. 93-638 with both the IHS and the BIA.
        Two historic events between the U. S. Army and the SIR were
    commemorated during a ceremony on July 30, 1997. The first event was
    the transfer of Army property to the SIR which occurred as a result of
    the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC). The second event
    was the four-way partnership created between the Madigan Army Medical
    Center, the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, California, the SIR, and the
    local government. This partnership allows the SIR to provide health
    care services not only to the SIR population but to active and retired
    military personnel and the local population who reside in this remote
    area of Lassen County. This was the first such agreement in the Nation
    and the SIR was the first tribe ever to have Army property transferred
    under the BRAC process.
        A major achievement of the transfer of some of the facilities at
    the Sierra Army Depot to the SIR was the establishment of a Youth
    Regional Treatment Center (YRTC). Since the original enactment of the
    Indian Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986, the
    California Plan was developed by the Tribes who have been waiting and
    working toward the establishment of such facilities. With the transfer
    of the facilities from the Department of the Army, we are on the verge
    of finally realizing these efforts for the Indian population of
    California. Since fiscal year 1993, Congress has appropriated $17.4
    million for the construction of YRTCs in other areas and the SIRs
    acquisition of the facilities does not require construction funds. When
    finally developed and staffed, the YRTC will house and treat 30-50
    Native American youths between the ages of 12--18 during their
    respective cycles of at least 120 days. These youth will be referred
    from other participating tribes in California through a state-wide
    clinical referral team. To accomplish this effort, the SIR received
    over 50 Tribal resolutions and letters of support from throughout
    California. The YRTC will be the only family-oriented residential
    facility in California and possibly the IHS. This will provide for on-
    site direct involvement of the family in the treatment process. By all
    accounts, family-oriented residential treatment is the most effective
    approach in the treatment of substance abuse.
        While we are aware of and understand the President's concerns
    relating to the new initiatives he is proposing for the Native
    Americans, we find it hard to comprehend the reduction of current
    health services to our people to fund these initiatives. By not
    providing for the mandatory costs increases (inflation), the current
    level of inadequate services will result in cuts to direct services.
    The Indian Health Service is the primary source of health care to our
    people whether directly or by contracting with Tribal Organizations. As
    a Tribal Contractor in a rural and somewhat isolated part of the
    country, we are constantly straining to meet the needs of our people
    against the ever-shrinking resources available. It is important and
    necessary to at least maintain the current level of services that is
    provided to Native Americans, plus inflation.
        This is especially true in the state of California. The recently
    completed Health Report from the Congressionally mandated California
    Indian Policy Commission finds a global funding shortfall of $56
    million for health services in California. Another study funded by the
    Administration for Native Americans finds that California has the
    lowest adjusted per capita expenditure within the entire IHS. In
    addition, an IHS conducted Health Services Inventory conducted in 1993
    reported that California had a ``Mean Level of Needs (services) being
    met'' of 31 percent compared to the IHS average of 58 percent.
        With this, other studies, and reports in mind, we believe that
    there is a greater need to maintain current services and combat the
    effects of alcoholism, mental health, unemployment, diabetes, drug
    abuse, suicide, and violence that are epidemic among Native Americans.
    New initiatives are needed but not at the expense of existing programs.
        As Congress begins the appropriations process for fiscal year 2000,
    the SIR aggressively seeks support from the Subcommittee in reversing
    the decline in funding for the Native American programs that we have
    experienced since fiscal year 1996. In general, we believe that the
    President's fiscal year 2000 budget has taken a positive step in that
    direction in some areas. We are concerned, however, that even the
    Administration's request for certain essential tribal programs and
    services provided through the BIA and the IHS remain seriously
    inadequate. Accordingly, tribal budgets are insufficient to meet the
    most basic needs of tribal populations.
        With this in mind, we would propose that the Subcommittee take the
    following actions regarding the IHS and BIA fiscal year 2000 Budget
    Requests as outlined in priority order on the attached pages.
               susanville indian rancheria--indian health service
        1. We propose an increase of $52.2 million for mandatory cost
    increases (inflation).--The subcommittee needs to provide the
    inflationary cost increase required to maintain the fiscal year 1999
    level of services. Currently, the Indian Health Service per capita
    health care expenditure is approximately one third that of the U. S.
    civilian resident. To further erode this by not providing for inflation
    does not reflect the Federal government's responsibility to promote the
    health of the American Indian and Alaska Native people, communities,
    and culture by providing quality curative and preventive medical care.
    In some cases, the IHS is the only source of care available in remote
    locales. The Tribes as well as the IHS have continually lagged behind
    the health care inflation rates for a number of years and have seen the
    level of services decrease because of this fact. Because of the
    remoteness of Indian clinics the cost of services becomes an increasing
    burden on Tribal leadership as resources are being taxed to the limit.
    The rate of inflation is exceeding the resources available to IHS and
    Tribal contractors and, therefore, services have to be reduced.
        If, as the President has stated in the past, IHS is the only source
    of medical care available on remote reservation lands, does he expect
    the continuation of the same level of services as the previous year
    while planning to propose new program initiatives? By not providing for
    mandatory cost increases it will continue to erode the available
    resources available for the delivery of health services. The effect is
    twofold in that qualified medical personnel will not continue to work
    nor can be hired for salaries that are below those of their
    counterparts in the private sector and, in order to pay for the raises,
    resources used for health care are diverted from providing services and
    a reduction of the level of services being provided is the end result.
        Tribal contractors benefit from this increase because IHS provides
    some of the resources to them and that enables them to provide pay
    raises and to better hire qualified medical personnel. Remote
    locations, the lack of proper medical equipment, and the lack of
    personnel are problems faced daily by Native American health care
    providers. To continue this trend is to further erode the health status
    of these people.
        We, therefore, request that the subcommittee provide the resources
    required for the mandatory cost increase--$52.2 million.
        2. We propose the restoration of the $5 million reduction in
    community health representatives (CHR).--The CHR program is a vital
    link to the delivery of health services for the Susanville Indian
    Rancheria. We are located in a isolated, rural community with a lack of
    adequate roads and health care services. The CHR program provides us
    the opportunity to reach out to our Tribal members on a one-on-one
    basis and provide not only transportation services but nutrition, food
    delivery, well-baby care, etc.. We understand that some Tribal
    Officials believe that this program may not be vital to them and, if
    reductions are required this is the program to be reduced. These
    officials are not located in locations such as the SIR and other
    organizations and have determined it is not a priority. But it is a
    priority for Tribal organizations such as ours.
        We, therefore, request that the $5 million reduction be restored
    for the Community Health Representatives program.
        3. We propose an increase of $21 million for the youth regional
    treatment centers (YRTC).--One of the major causes of health care
    problems among the Native American population is alcoholism and
    substance abuse especially among the youths of the reservations. To
    combat this issue, the IHS and Tribes have been hard at work
    establishing Youth Regional Treatment Centers (YRTC). When first
    conceived, as a result of the Indian Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
    and Treatment Act in 1986, the projected cost for operating these
    facilities was $22 million per year. The IHS base program contains
    approximately $11 million. All Tribes and the IHS involved in these
    facilities realize that, to fully function, there needs to be
    appropriated an additional $21 million due to the various levels of
    services being provided at each facility. If these facilities are to
    make a difference and provide the Native American youth of today with
    the ability to live to be an adult, such an increase would ensure a
    long and productive life.
        We, therefore, request a program increase of $21 million for
    operational costs be provide for the Youth Regional Treatment Centers.
        4. We support the proposed increase of $35 million for contract
    support costs.--Total funding requirements for Contract Support Costs
    for fiscal year 2000 is $309 million of which there is available $203.7
    million. This leaves a shortfall of $105 million. The Self-
    Determination process is being delayed due the constraints on the funds
    available.
        In fiscal year 1997, concern was expressed that the IHS depiction
    of the shortfall would be misunderstood as resulting from unwarranted
    indirect cost escalation. It does appear that the Appropriations
    Committee has also misunderstood this issue. The Committee struck the
    request for shortfall, and concerned with the rapid increase in
    contract support costs, directed the IHS to work with Tribes, the BIA,
    the IHS, and the Office of the Inspector General (IG) of the Department
    of the Interior to see what could be done to contain costs. The IG
    issued a preliminary report that found the increases were not due to
    unwarranted indirect cost escalation, but were mainly due to increased
    compacting and contracting activity among the Tribes. It is essential
    that tribes waiting to compact or contract be given some hope of
    receiving the funding needed to make Self-Determination hopes a
    reality. There is also a possibility that recent court decisions and
    continuing unmet needs might result in the retrocession of compacts and
    contracts back to the IHS which would create an even bigger problem for
    the Committee in the future.
        We, therefore, request that an increase of $35 million be provided
    for the Indian Self-Determination Fund.
        The President's budget provides for an increase of $155.6 million
    over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. While we support the increases
    proposed we would like to note that they do not restore certain
    programs such as the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA). The small
    increases to TPA over the last several years have failed to keep up
    with inflation.
        The major concern we have is that the California Tribes be treated
    on an equitable basis when distribution of funds and these increases,
    if appropriated, are made by the BIA.
        We, therefore, request that the proposed budget for the BIA be
    appropriated as presented. We also request that special set-aside funds
    for individual Tribes be carefully scrutinized and funded only in cases
    of dire emergencies.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of David M. Gipp, President; and Charles Murphy,
            Board President and Chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
              united tribes technical college: making a difference
        For thirty years United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has been
    providing postsecondary vocational education, job training and family
    services to Indian students from the Great Plains and throughout the
    nation. An inter-tribally controlled educational institution,\1\ UTTC
    was assisting Indian people in moving from public assistance to
    economic self-sufficiency long before the 1996 welfare reform act. Our
    job placement rate in 1997 was 96 percent. The request of the Board of
    the United Tribes Technical College Board for the fiscal year 2000
    Bureau of Indian Affairs budget is:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The college is owned and operated by five federally-recognized
    tribes situated wholly or in part in North Dakota. These Tribes are the
    Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, the
    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort
    Berthold Reservation, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. Control
    of the institution is vested in a ten-member board of directors
    comprised of elected Tribal Chairpersons and Tribal council members.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --$2,538,000 in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $157,000 over the
            Administration's request. It is also the same as the fiscal
            year 1998 Senate mark.
      --Increased BIA funding for contract support costs. We annually
            absorb approximately $100,000 in contract support costs.
      -- Additionally, we ask Congress to encourage the BIA to place more
            emphasis on job training and vocational/technical education.
            The Adult Vocational Training program, funded at $9.9 million
            in fiscal year 1999, is but a shadow of its former self. There
            is no BIA leadership or advocacy for job training or
            vocational/technical education at the central or area levels.
            United Tribes Technical College, whose budget is located in the
            ``Special Programs and Pooled Overhead/Community Development''
            portion of the BIA budget suffers from at best a lack of
            interest from persons who work with that portion of the
            budget.who primarily work on BIA-administered accounts. Other
            tribally-based colleges are in the ``Other Recurring/
            Education'' portion of the budget.
        United Tribes Technical College.--A Unique Inter-Tribal Educational
    Organization. United Tribes Technical College is the only inter-
    tribally controlled, campus-based, postsecondary vocational institution
    for Indian people. We are chartered by the five tribes in North Dakota
    and operate under an Indian Self-Determination contract with the BIA.
    We currently enroll 310 students from 36 tribes and 17 states. In
    addition, we serve 115 children in our pre-school programs and 128
    children in our elementary school, bringing the population for whom we
    provide direct services to 593. In some years our students come from as
    many as 45 tribes.
        Occasionally people assume that UTTC is funded under the
    authorization for the other tribally controlled postsecondary
    institutions--the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges Act (TCC). We
    do not receive funding through the TCC Act, an Act which authorizes
    funding for only one tribal college per tribe. In North Dakota, each
    tribe has chartered a tribal college under the authority of the TCC
    Act. Additionally, the tribes in North Dakota jointly administer United
    Tribes Technical College which, in turn, serves Indian students from
    all over the nation.
        UTTC was incorporated in 1968, long before most of today's tribal
    colleges were established. However, we have much in common with the
    other tribally-controlled colleges and are an active part of the
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). What distinguishes
    us from the other tribally-controlled colleges is that we are chartered
    and controlled jointly by multiple numbers of tribes and that our
    primary focus is postsecondary vocational education. Additionally, our
    campus-based family housing is unique.
        Educating Students and Placing Them in Jobs.--We are proud of the
    education, skills and services provided by UTTC for our students and
    their families over the past thirty years. And we are proud that this
    education is taking placing in a tribal setting, where our students and
    their families can maintain and strengthen their tribal heritage. We
    have had a job placement rate exceeding 80 percent sustained over the
    last 10 years, and in 1997 had a job placement rate of 96 percent. This
    success is all the more gratifying in light of the background of our
    students, most of whom come from tribal areas where poverty and
    unemployment are the norm. A large proportion of our students are from
    the fourteen tribes in the Dakotas, where unemployment among Indian
    people is chronic. BIA Labor Force data reports the percentage of
    potential Indian labor force on and near reservations in the Aberdeen
    Area (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska) who are jobless is 71
    percent. Of those persons who are employed salaries are so low that 33
    percent are living below the poverty guidelines. (Source: Interior
    Department 1997 Labor Market Information On the Indian Labor Force.)
        UTTC Course Offerings and Coordination with Other Educational
    Institutions.--UTTC offers 8 Certificate and 13 Associate of Applied
    Science degree programs.\2\ Entrepreneurship and new technology skills
    are being integrated into appropriate curricula. Recently we expanded
    our business program. And our newest program is a two-year degree
    program in injury prevention which was established in September of
    1998. We are the first tribal college to have this course of study. The
    course trains students for injury prevention specialist jobs, and to
    try to change the culture of injury in Indian country. The program
    offers classes including Introduction to Injury Prevention, Prevention
    of Traffic-Related Injuries, and Prevention of Injuries Due to
    Violence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ One-year certificates are: Office Technology; Automotive
    Service Technician; Construction Trades Technology with options in
    Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing, and Welding; Early Childhood
    Education; Criminal Justice; Hospitality Management: Food & Beverage
    Specialization; Medical Secretary.; and Welding Technician.
        Two-year Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.) degrees are offered:
    Arts/Marketing; Automotive Service Technology; Construction Trades
    Technology with options in Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing and Welding;
    Criminal Justice; Early Childhood Education; Health Information
    Technology; Hospitality Management: Food & Beverage Specialization;
    Office Technology with emphasis in computer applications or accounting;
    Practical Nursing; Small Business Management; Welding Technology;
    Dietetic Technician, and Injury Prevention.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The death rate among Indian injuries is 2.8 times that of the total
    U.S. population (Source: Indian Health Service fiscal year 1999 Budget
    Justification book). Reducing the incidence of injuries in Indian
    country is an area of focus for both the IHS and the Surgeon General.
    We received assistance through the IHS to establish our Injury
    Prevention Curricula.
        All programs are accredited through the North Central Association
    of Colleges and Schools at both the certificate and two-year degree
    granting levels. During the last re-accreditation process (1996), the
    NCACS authorized UTTC to begin developing curricula for four-year
    degrees.
        UTTC has transfer and articulation agreements with other colleges
    so our graduates can transfer to four-year schools from areas including
    Licensed Practical Nursing, Criminal Justice, Business and
    Entrepreneurship and Health Instruction. We have been a member of the
    Interactive Video Network of North Dakota's colleges, universities and
    tribal colleges since 1994. This is expanding the educational
    opportunities for our students.
        Job Training and Economic Development.--UTTC is a designated Indian
    Minority Business Center serving Montana, South Dakota and North
    Dakota. We also administer a Job Training Partnership Act program and
    an internship program with private employers. And, thanks to a grant
    from the Kellogg Foundation, we are assisting tribes and tribal members
    in the Aberdeen Area with rebuilding buffalo herds.
        Coordination with State Welfare-to-Work Efforts.--UTTC is working
    in cooperation with the state of North Dakota on welfare reform. We are
    serving state-referred Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF)
    recipients who are able to participate in our Cooperative Education
    internship program with private employers. By attending UTTC, these
    TANF recipients can meet their work, training and volunteer
    requirements. And we are providing child care for 60 children of state-
    referred TANF recipients.
        We take exception to the 12-month statutory limit on the length of
    time a TANF recipient can be enrolled in a vocational education course
    and still be eligible for TANF. This limits TANF recipients to taking
    one-year certificate courses at UTTC. Our experience shows that the
    students who graduate from a two-year, rather than a one-year, course
    have significantly higher earning power. Many of our students come to
    UTTC planning to take a one-year course, and then, finding themselves
    in a supportive environment and seeing the economic benefit of the
    longer course, decide to work for the two-year degree.
        Serving Families Contributes to Education and Job Placement.--We
    believe that a primary reason for UTTC student success is that we serve
    the students' social, academic and cultural needs. Many of our students
    are the first generation in their family to attend college and for many
    it is their first experience in living away from home. Many students
    are on public assistance and many have families of their own. Some of
    our services are:
      --Early childhood services for 155 children, ages birth to five years
            and an additional 41 elementary children for extended care.
      --The Theodore Jamerson Elementary School (grades K-8) serving 128
            Indian students;
      --A health clinic whose services includes immunization, health
            education, eye and dental exams, and referrals to other health
            care providers;
      --Family housing and dormitories for solo parents and for students
            without children;
      --A local transportation system for students for school activities
            and necessary appointment e.g., (doctor appointments) outside
            the campus. Most UTTC students do not have cars.
        UTTC Seeks Non-BIA Funds.--UTTC is aggressive in seeking non-BIA
    funding for special needs. For example ,we combined Department of
    Agriculture, Economic Development Administration and state Community
    Development Block Grant funds and replaced our aging water, sewer and
    gas systems in 1997.
        Our elementary school received a competitive Department of
    Education grant for computer technology, and was one five BIA-system
    schools to receive this funding. We also received a Kellogg Foundation
    grant to develop buffalo management skills for the tribes and their
    members throughout the Aberdeen Area, as they attempt to rebuild herds
    of buffalo decimated more than 100 years ago.
        The above mentioned grants are highly competitive, restrictive,
    one-time grants, and they cannot provide for day-to-day operations. We
    cannot survive without the basic operating funds which come through the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        UTTC Funding History and Current Needs.--BIA funding has not come
    close to meeting our cost-of-living and other needs. From fiscal year
    1990 through fiscal year 1999, BIA funding for UTTC increased on the
    average 3.9 percent annually (from $1,708,000 in fiscal year 1990 to
    $2,310,000 in fiscal year 1999).
        The operating and purchasing strength of our budget has diminished
    by some 20 percent since 1990. Utility costs are especially difficult.
    Electricity expenses have risen about 20 percent per unit and the per
    unit gas costs have increases approximately 113 percent during this
    decade. We have been able to partially offset utility rate increases by
    implementing stringent conservation measures such as improved
    weatherization and reductions in building temperatures. However, energy
    consumption cannot be further reduced because of our location and the
    harsh winters in the northern plains.
        While we are not proposing a large increase in BIA funding for
    UTTC, below are some of our financial needs of which we want you to be
    aware:
      --Housing.--We need new and rehabilitated campus housing so that we
            can increase student enrollment. We have an ongoing waiting
            list for enrollment, which currently stands at 200. The primary
            reason for not admitting a potential student is lack of
            housing.
      --Salaries.--We were able to provide a cost-of-living increase for
            our employees last year However, our faculty still receive
            salaries that are lower than in any state college system. North
            Dakota salaries for higher education faculty are the lowest in
            the nation--but the average faculty salaries at UTTC are even
            lower than those in the North Dakota state system.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS)
    Report of the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Department of Education
    Office of Education Statistics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Maintenance and Repair of Historic Buildings.--Lack of available
            resources has also meant a limitation on the repair and
            maintenance of physical facilities, many of which are of
            historic significance. The College occupies the old Fort
            Lincoln Army Post, and many people visit our campus to see
            these buildings. Other than the more recently constructed
            skills center and the community center, UTTC's core facilities
            are 90 years old. Estimates for new facilities total over $12
            million, according to a 1993 U.S. Department of Education
            report to Congress. Continuing a course of nonrepair will
            ultimately prove more costly as the repairs will be greater.
            Fire and safety reports document our repair needs.
      --Emergency Repair.--Emergency repair on both single and family
            student housing, instructional facilities and support
            facilities exceeds $100,000. This amount will obviously not
            cover major renovations or new facilities. Funding is also
            needed for maintenance and repair related to damaged caused by
            inclement weather including blizzards and extremely low
            temperatures.
        Neither UTTC nor other tribal colleges receive funding through the
    BIA for maintenance and repair nor for construction. We believe that
    this situation should be corrected. A good starting point would be to
    make some maintenance and repair funding available to the tribal
    colleges.
      --Contract Support Costs.--The fixed and related costs approved under
            our annual Indirect Cost proposal to the U.S. Inspector General
            have decreased in recovery by over $100,000 annually, with
            another expected loss of $110,000 for fiscal year 1998 and at
            least that much in fiscal year 1999. We are in dire need of
            adequate recovery for this year, as well as prior years. In
            fact, we have an unrecovered contract support cost of
            $1,089,000 over the past ten years. UTTC's absorption of these
            built-in costs has damaged our capability to provide program
            services to our students and faculty.
      --Technology.--We need funding for updating our computers and
            hardware to maintain and our capabilities for distance learning
            programs for our campus-based students and students at other
            locations. We have been working with the Denver Indian Center
            to provide UTTC classes, via distance learning. to the Indian
            population in the Denver area. Thus far we have three classes
            on-line and are expecting to begin operations soon.
      --Course Offerings/Student Services.--We would like to change some of
            our courses to better meet new market demands. For example, we
            want to expand the allied health professions. We also need to
            expand our diagnostic capabilities in tribal-specific areas and
            also in the areas of literacy and math-science background. This
            would allow us to improve student remediation services.
            Finally, we want to make improvements in our student follow up,
            career development, and job market research efforts.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request. We need your
    assistance to ensure that the unique educational opportunities offered
    by United Tribes Technical College will be available for what we hope
    will be an increasing number of Indian and Alaska Native students and
    their families next year and in the future.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Guenthardt, Tribal Ogema (Chief
          Executive), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan
        This testimony provides the views of the Little River Band of
    Ottawa Indians of Michigan on the President's Budget Request for fiscal
    year 2000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Tribe is requesting
    that the Committee either provide an add-on of $355,500 to the fiscal
    year 1999 Tribal Priorities Allocation (TPA) enacted level, or that the
    Committee direct the BIA to make this money available to the Tribe out
    of regular TPA funding. The Tribe is also requesting Committee support
    for the request of the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Management Authority for
    additional funding for Little River for negotiations and implementation
    of the U.S. v. Michigan treaty fishing settlement.
        The Little River Ottawa is a relatively small Tribe which was
    restored and reaffirmed to Federal recognition by Congress in 1994.
    Because the Tribe's restoration Act was passed in September of 1994,
    the Tribe did not receive funding in fiscal year 1995. The Tribe first
    received BIA ``New Tribes'' funding in fiscal year 1996. Unfortunately,
    the Tribal enrollment figure used to submit appropriations requests was
    the number of BIA-approved enrollment files (650), rather than the
    Tribe's projected enrollment of 2,000. The Tribe's fiscal year 1996 New
    Tribes funding was $330,000. In comparison, other newly restored/
    reaffirmed Tribes with comparable enrollments received in excess of $1
    Million Dollars in New Tribes funding. Little River's New Tribes
    funding level was increased from $330,000 to $671,000 in fiscal year
    1997; however, even this increased level was half of that received by
    similarly situated Tribes.
        This funding inequity hindered the Tribe's ability to fulfill the
    purposes of the ``new tribes'' program. Nevertheless, in the few years
    since Congress restored the Little River Ottawa to federal recognition,
    Tribal leaders have made the best use of the limited resources
    available to fulfill their governmental responsibilities and to use the
    tools of self-determination. In July 1998, the Tribe's membership
    approved a new Constitution, which establishes three (3) separate
    branches of Tribal government: Legislative (Tribal Council), Executive
    (Tribal Ogema), and an independent Tribal Judiciary. The Tribe has
    utilized, or is utilizing, monies received under the Michigan Indian
    Land Claims Settlement Act (Pub. L. 105-143) to purchase nearly 2,000
    acres of former Reservation land for community and economic
    development. The acquisition of these properties has dramatically
    increased the Tribal government's regulatory and law enforcement
    responsibilities. Many Tribal families are returning the Reservation in
    anticipation of new jobs and housing. Importantly, the Tribe's
    Constitution assures Tribal members and non-members alike, access to
    the Tribal Courts to vindicate rights secured under the Tribe's
    Constitution and enforcement of Tribal laws. As Committee members are
    well aware, providing and maintaining a competent Tribal forum for
    members and non-members does not come cheap.
        As noted previously, the Bureau did take some steps to correct the
    Tribe's funding inequities in fiscal year 1997, when the Tribe's New
    Tribes funding level was adjusted from $330,000 to $671,000. In fiscal
    year 1998, Minneapolis Area Office received approximately $1.9 Million
    Dollars in additional TPA monies to be re-allocated in the Area.
    Unfortunately, those increased funds were allocated based upon each
    Tribes' current funding and Little River's share only amounted to
    $48,696. The addition of these funds, however, did bring the Tribe's
    total appropriation for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to $724,166.
        The Tribe is doing its part to develop a responsible, competent
    Tribal government. Long-term maintenance and support for these
    essential governmental responsibilities requires adequate Tribal
    Priorities Allocation funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        A number of these important programs--most notably Tribal Courts,
    Law Enforcement, Tribal Council and Social Services--are dramatically
    underfunded. The Tribe's unmet needs in these very critical areas can
    be met with surprisingly little funding--approximately $400,000. This
    increase will permit the Tribe to maintain its existing programs at the
    minimum levels established in previous fiscal years and provide the
    Tribe with a base budget to develop and maintain a independent,
    competent Tribal Judiciary and related law enforcement on the Tribe's
    Reservation.
        This is the second year the Tribe has asked the Congress for
    assistance in correcting the mis-calculation of the Tribe's TPA
    distribution. We ask for this Subcommittee's assistance in making sure
    the BIA corrects this problem in fiscal year 2000. Specifically, the
    Tribe is requesting that the Committee either provide an add-on of
    $355,500 to the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, or that the Committee
    direct the BIA to make this money available to the Tribe out of regular
    TPA funding.
        With the federal dollars it have received, the Tribe has now hired
    a core staff and has developed several programs to address the service
    needs of tribal members. The Tribe has established its Court, its
    governmental offices, a health clinic, a community center and has begun
    to reacquire land within its historic Reservations. Unfortunately, this
    progress may be short-lived. Unless we have a funding increase in
    fiscal year 2000, the Tribe will have to cut back or eliminate many
    programs.
        The Tribe also has Court-ordered responsibilities for management,
    regulation and enforcement activities related to Treaty-reserved
    fisheries on the Great Lakes. The Congress has recognized its unique
    obligation to fund Tribes sufficiently to protect Treaty resources.
    Since the early 1980's Congress has appropriated recurring funds
    through a separate line-item for the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery
    Management Authority to permit its member Tribes to carry out their
    responsibilities for Great Lakes treaty fishery conservation and
    management, as well as meeting their obligations under a Consent Order
    entered in the treaty rights litigation U.S. v. Michigan. The terms of
    the settlement embodied in the Consent Order and the current efforts to
    negotiate a successor a agreement are a testament to the Tribe's
    willingness to work with the State and its user groups to reach
    accommodations on these controversial matters.
        In 1998, Little River became a member of the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty
    Fishery Management Authority and a party to U.S. v. Michigan. The Tribe
    intends to be a full partner in the management and protection of the
    Great Lakes fishery resources and is assuming its Court Ordered
    responsibilities under the Consent Order. To date, however, Congress
    has not provided the Treaty Management Authority with the financial
    resources necessary to provide Little River with the funds it needs to
    carry out its regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. The
    Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority will be requesting
    additional funding to allow the Little River Ottawa to assume these
    responsibilities. As is the case with the other 1836 Treaty tribes who
    are party to U.S. v. Michigan, these funds are appropriated through a
    separate recurring line-item in addition to each of the member Tribes'
    TPA allocations. With the expiration of the current Consent Order in
    the Year 2000, actual appropriation of these funds for Little River in
    the Year 2000 is essential to protection of Little River's treaty
    resources.
        Mr. Chairman, the Tribe believes this situation has reached a
    critical state. In fact, and I do not say this lightly, our very
    survival as a tribal government depends upon adequate funding provided
    to us by the Bureau of Indian Affairs from appropriations made by the
    Congress. We are willing to assume and carry out our responsibilities
    as a government; however, those responsibilities require a minimum
    level of funding. What we currently have is simply not enough. If we
    can be provided and assured the minimum level we ask for, we are
    willing to use those resources to do the rest, and the best, for our
    people.
        We thank you for any help you can offer to ensure that our funding
    needs in fiscal year 2000 will be met.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to bring this important matter
    to the attention of the Members of the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of William Old Chief, Chairman, Blackfeet Tribe,
                          Blackfeet Indian Reservation
        Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Committee Members: My name is
    William Old Chief, Chairman of the Blackfeet Tribe, government of the
    Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Montana. I would like to respectfully
    thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony to the
    Senate Committee on Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. I am
    requesting appropriation funding for the Blackfeet Tribe, funding
    administration shall be directed through the Department of the
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Wildlife and Parks. Listed by
    priority, they are: $4,700,000.00 to construct a Trout Fish Hatchery
    facility; $275,000.00 annual 638 Self-Determination contract for
    hatchery operations; $100,000.00addendum to the existing Blackfeet Fish
    and Wildlife Public Law 93-638 Self-Determination Contract which is
    currently funded at $100,000 annually, the addendum will bring the
    total to $200,000annually; $50,000.00 addendum to the existing
    Blackfeet Threatened and Endangered Species Program Public Law 93-638
    Self-Determination contract, which is currently funded at $120,000
    annually, the addendum will bring the total to $170,000 annually.
        The Blackfeet Indian Reservation (BIR) is located in central
    Montana and shares borders with Glacier National Park to the West and
    Canada to the North. The BIR land base encompasses 1.5 million acres of
    forest, range and farm lands. The Blackfeet Tribe consists of
    approximately 15,000 members, of which 8,500 members reside on the
    reservation. Non-Tribal residents of the reservation number
    approximately 2,500 individuals.
        The BIR recreational fisheries habitat and resource is extensive
    and provides an integral role within the structure of the natural
    resource. The assemblage of BIR aquatic wetlands consist of 19,668
    acres of glaciated pothole basins that range in size of less than an
    acre to lakes of more than 2,000 acres. Approximately 35 lakes still in
    a Pre-Columbus state provide 13 square miles of blue ribbon trout fish
    habitat.
        The Blackfeet Tribe has clearly identified the need for a Trout
    Fish Hatchery on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, and has initiated
    inter-agency cooperative measures for the preparatory planning and
    development of a facility. The proposed hatchery would exclusively
    support lake systems in Indian Country, and would serve to attain
    maximum biologic potential for growth, angler success, and production.
    The hatchery requirement stems from an effort to secure the integrity
    of the Tribal Fisheries resource and provide for its' future growth
    potential. The establishment of a resident hatchery will offer the
    Tribe a multiple of opportune economic advancements and make possible
    the desire to obtain a positive level of self-reliance and effective
    self-governance. The hatchery will foster associative social and
    economic interests and productively address the commercial expansion of
    Tribal and Non-Tribal based affiliate private businesses. The Tribe
    envisions a sustained recreational fisheries supported internally by
    existing Tribal conservation management trust efforts.
        The Blackfeet Tribal lake fisheries have historically produced
    trophy trout in impressive numbers and have been said to be the fly
    fishermens' best kept secret in the Northwest. Because of this
    recognition, the revenue generated through sales of Tribal fishing
    permits is substantial and provides an important source of income for
    the Tribe and supports many local and state private enterprises. Tribal
    fishing permits are sold on and off the BIR, which effectively promotes
    business to many local and surrounding Montana rural communities.
    Revenue from permit sales goes to provide conservation law enforcement
    and management for the Tribes' fisheries. Peak sales of permits earned
    the Tribe $201,000 in revenue for fiscal year 1996. Although it is not
    a significant amount on a national scale, in an arena of a stressed
    agriculture economy this relief is notably substantial. Once in
    operation Hatchery production would enable the Tribe to maximize
    fishery growth potential and increase service supply to stimulate
    expansion of recreational fishery commerce.
        Trout stocking for the Tribal lakes has been conducted annually by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, and for many years the Tribe has
    enjoyed benefits derived from this trust responsibility. The Tribe
    deems the stocking program to be successful in many categories, but has
    grown strongly concerned by recent yearly disruptions that have placed
    the Tribal fishery in jeopardy. The Tribe received a maximum
    supplementation of 800,000 trout in fiscal year 90', since that time
    the Tribe has seen a disturbing decline in lake fish stocking rates.
    fiscal year 1998' stocking rates for Tribal lakes were approximately
    300,000 trout. The impact to the Tribe has been a serious deficiency in
    angler success and a 35 percent reduction in fishing permit revenues.
    The Tribe receives the bulk of fish for the lakes from Creston Hatchery
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Tribe expects additional disruption
    to the lake stocking rates when Creston interrupts production to meet
    quality standards to the dam structure that supports the Hatchery. Also
    the USFWS has adopted a new policy of raising only native endemic
    species in federal hatcheries, the effect of this transition will
    disrupt production and stocking rates as well. The Tribe appreciates
    the requirements of the comprehensive public trust responsibility and
    empathizes with the ensuing reduction in services due to budget
    concerns, yet the serious plight of the Tribes' natural resource
    interests lends further justification to acquire a Tribal Hatchery. The
    advent of these developments expedites existing Tribal desires to
    realize self-reliance in this area of Trust responsibility and secure
    Tribal interests.
        The Blackfeet Tribe has worked cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to thoroughly examine
    preliminary hatchery considerations. Interior agency technical
    assistance has enabled the Tribe to ensure the best management
    practices and address collective natural resource parameters to assure
    environmental and biologic quality control. The Tribe is confident in
    the planning direction arrived by the collaborate process and is
    affirmed that procurement for quality production will be attained.
        The hatchery facility design will address current fish culture
    practices to ensure quality biologic production and maintain species
    integrity. To accomplish this goal all fish production will be
    accommodated indoors. Water supplies will be treated in two manners.
    The fish egg hatching facility will utilize filter systems that will
    range down in size to one-half micron mesh followed by ozone injection,
    and finally ultra violet exposure. The larger building that will house
    older developed fish, will filter the water for larger colloidal
    suspended sediment and be exposed to ultra violet light. These methods
    will suppress bacterial and viral introduction with a high degree of
    certainty. The egg hatching facility water amount requirement is less
    but demands intensive treatment because of the high disease
    susceptibility of younger fish. An enclosed hatchery building will
    provide water quality by diminishing the formation of solar radiated
    algae and bacteria. The use of smooth fiberglass tanks in a darkened
    surrounding will reduce injury complicated by the stressful environment
    of an enclosure. Indoor rearing of the fish imparts a preservation of
    survival escape behavior needed once the fish is released in their
    natural habitat, this decreases mortality rates and increases mature
    populations in the wild. The Hatchery will have a 50 year operational
    capacity and will have the future potential to provide Fish to the
    other Federally recognized Tribes residing in Montana.
        The Tribe shall utilize a three phase production approach for the
    hatchery. Phase one shall include the engineering and design details to
    conform to facility production fish requirements. Phase two shall be
    further defined on the basis of phase one to construct the Hatchery.
    Phase three shall involve operational OMB performance to achieve
    progressional development. The Tribe has explored and examined plans
    for a host of contingencies pertinent to the hatchery for five years.
    The parameters and requirements for phase one have been logistically
    defined. Phase one will require a expert consulting design to refine
    and document a final product that will allow the Tribe to shift to
    phase two and phase three.
        The Great Plains Tribes have consistently been regarded in terms of
    their relationship with the buffalo. Primarily this is true for the
    Blackfeet Tribe, yet culturally the Blackfeet honored all animal
    species with equal repect and reverence. In particular, although not a
    diet staple the fish plays a very significant historical and
    contemporary spiritual role for the Blackfeet. Consumption of fish is
    performed first to honor particular spirits before the commencement of
    all Blackfeet spiritual ceremonies. In addition, the advent of western
    society has placed subsistence burdens on the people of the Blackfeet
    Tribe since the late 1880's. To offset their adversity the Tribe has
    incorporated fish more frequently into daily diets, and like the horse,
    fish have evolved to portray a active culturally important role to the
    society structure. In short, the Blackfeet Tribe has a substantial
    invested interest in the procurement of the best stewardship for the
    Tribal natural resources fisheries.
        The Blackfeet Tribe receives an annual Public Law 93-638 contract
    to conduct fish and wildlife conservation management for purposes that
    include law enforcement, management operations, project work, and
    administrative support. The intent of this contract continues to be
    fulfilled by theBlackfeet Fish and Wildlife Department (BFWD). The
    Tribe enjoys increased fish and wildlife resources and distinguishes an
    expansion in responsibility, concurrently as the BFWD has matured, the
    need for additional funding to support operational performance and
    function is essential to meet management requirements. The Tribe takes
    great pride in the success that past funding has allowed. Part of that
    success is made possible and is demonstrated by the Tribes' well
    established fish and wildlife conservation code. To meet future
    resource responsibilities with competence and credibility the Tribe
    must attend to enlarge it's capabilities. Funding to meet these natural
    resource requirements would empower the Tribe to self-sufficiently
    administer new incursions of responsibility.
        The BIR provides extensive habitat for a wide variety of fish and
    wildlife species. Many species are listed within the Endangered Species
    Act or are candidate concerned species. The BFWD must provide the
    protection aspect of management for these ESA species. Big and small
    game species including non-game species proliferate on the BIR. Fish
    and wildlife fauna include: Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Grey Wolves,
    Elk, Moose, Whitetail and Mule Deer, Mountain Goat, Mountain Lion, Big
    Horn Sheep, Antelope, Bald and Golden eagles, Osprey, Piping plovers,
    Ferruginous Hawk, Northern Goshhawk, Harlequin Ducks, Trumpeter Swans,
    Whooping Crane, Lynx, Swift Fox, Red Fox, Bull Trout, Westslope
    Cutthroat Trout, Beavers, Otters, all members of the weasel
    family(wolverines), and coyotes. The BIR's pothole system plays a very
    important role for waterfowl and migratory birds( Trumpeter swans ).
    The BFWD responsibility is for the management of all species within the
    BIR's 1.5 million acres of habitat, additional funding would work
    directly to adequately secure that interest.
        The Blackfeet Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) program is
    one of several programs within the BFWD. Initially the duty of the TES
    program was to conduct research on grizzly bears and grey wolves on the
    BIR. TES responsibilities have expanded out of necessity to encompass
    more management efforts as well as other species that are listed as
    threatened or endangered. The current mission of the TES program is to
    gather information on the habits and distribution of grizzly bears,
    wolves, and other federally threatened and endangered wildlife species
    or species of special concern that occur on the BIR, to assist in their
    management, and to develop plans for future management of those
    species. The goals of the program include the following: (1) to provide
    information to resource managers that will enable them to avoid or
    lessen negative impacts to threatened or endangered species as they
    conduct their respective management activities, (2) to provide
    training, education, and employment opportunities to Tribal members in
    the field of wildlife biology, and (3) to assist BIR residents in the
    management of nuisance or depredating grizzly bears, wolves, or other
    predators.
        The TES program works closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and other federal, state, and Tribal agencies in cooperative
    interagency efforts to manage all threatened and endangered species.
    Some of the accomplishments to date include a habitat enhancement
    project for the threatened piping plover, a Tribal Bear management
    plan, near completion of a grizzly bear cumulative effects analysis
    model that will help managers throughout the ecosystem determine and
    mitigate effects on grizzlies of planned activities, a livestock
    carcass redistribution program that reduces conflicts between bears and
    ranchers, implementation of food storage guidelines for rural residents
    and campers to reduce bear conflicts, and garbage management
    guidelines, including acquisition of nonfederal funding for bear proof
    garbage dumpsters on much of the BIR. We work in close cooperation with
    a private conservation organization that reimburses ranchers for
    livestock that are killed by wolves or grizzly bears. The quality of
    our TES program is equitable to similar state or federal programs.
        TES current level of funding is not adequate to meet federal
    mandates or maintain quality service. Much of our equipment is over 10
    years old and needs replacement. Costs for operations have increased
    while our budget has remained the same. Grizzly Bear and wolf
    populations are increasing on the BIR and require more management
    effort. More wildlife species are being listed as threatened or
    endangered, requiring our attention. The TES mission dictates an
    additional human resources, and support equipment to meet our
    increasing demands to facilitate Tribal Self-Determination.
        The Blackfeet Tribe wishes to emphasize an imbalance in the federal
    funding distribution of fish and wildlife initiatives in Indian
    Country. The Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes region receive 85
    percent of funds while Tribes in the remainder of the country rely on
    the remaining 15 percent. The Great Plains region includes 80 percent
    of Indian Country trust land mass. The Blackfeet Tribe does not dispute
    nor wish to disrupt present funding allocations elsewhere, we only wish
    to express a desire to obtain a measure of equity in funding accruement
    to adequately address unmet natural resource needs.
        The Blackfeet Tribe appreciates previous support as it has assisted
    the BFWD to meet challenges and see to the best interest of the fish
    and wildlife resource. The sustained commitment demonstrated by the
    House and Senate strongly confirms a sincere pledge to promote
    Blackfeet self-sufficient efforts and fosters realization of tangible
    measures towards Self-Determination.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
                                    abstract
        The Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (BSFA) requests the Senate
    Appropriations subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to
    continue to direct base funding of $805,000 plus an additional $700,000
    to BSFA to conduct salmon research and restoration projects in the
    Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (A-Y-K) region of Alaska. As in previous fiscal
    years, base level funding of $805,000 is already available and
    identified for this research effort within the BIA's Wildlife & Parks,
    Tribal Management and Development program. Additional funding is
    requested to respond to the 1998 Federal fisheries disaster in western
    Alaska. BSFA will continue to work with appropriate regional Native
    non-profit organizations and village councils in the design and
    implementation of these projects.
    bsfa's arctic-yukon-kuskokwim salmon investigations program: monitoring
                       and restoring the salmon resource
        In response to drastic declines in salmon returns, in fiscal year
    1994 the Congress authorized a Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriation
    of $800,000 to BSFA to conduct salmon monitoring, research, restoration
    and enhancement projects in western Alaska. Since that time from fiscal
    year 1995 through fiscal year 1999 the BIA has maintained a base level
    funding of approximately $800,000 to $805,00 in its budget to support
    what is known as the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Salmon Investigations
    program. This base level funding has been placed in the Wildlife &
    Parks, Tribal Management & Development section of the budget. With the
    exception of fiscal year 1995 funding, each year the Congress has
    directed that the full $800,000-$805,000 be directed to the Bering Sea
    Fishermen's Association (BSFA) so that one single entity is responsible
    for administering the overall A-Y-K salmon research effort. Each year
    BSFA has consulted with agencies such as the Alaska Department of Fish
    & Game (ADF&G) and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS)
    as well as various regional Native non-profit organizations and village
    councils to create cooperative research projects. BSFA then
    subcontracts with these Native regional organizations and village
    councils for recruitment and supervision of a crew leader and local
    villagers and field equipment and supplies. In many cases, the ADF&G or
    USF&WS also provides in-kind support of personnel or equipment.
        The goals of these projects are to:
      --fill a gap in the scientific database not covered by existing
            agencies;
      --assure sustained yield management of salmon stocks;
      --develop tribal capabilities in salmon management and research, and;
      --provide information to assist management in providing for
            subsistence salmon needs of rural Alaskan villages.
        Using this Congressional appropriation BSFA has funded all or a
    significant portion of the cost of the following projects:
    Arctic (Kotzebue Sound & Norton Sound)
        Sikasuilaq Springs chum salmon hatchery: annual operational costs
    (fiscal year 1994)
        Kobuk River chum salmon abundance test fishery (fiscal year 1994)
        Regional salmon spawning surveys (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
    1999)
        Salmon catch (age-sex-length) sampling (fiscal year 1996-fiscal
    year 1999)
        Sockeye salmon habitat analysis & lake fertilization (fiscal year
    1994)
        Chum salmon habitat analysis & micro-hatchery construction (fiscal
    year 1994)
        Snake River salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
    1999)
        Eldorado River, Pilgrim River & North River salmon counting towers
    (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year 1999)
        Regional subsistence harvest surveys (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
    1999)
        Public forums: project planning (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year 1999)
    Yukon River
        Chum salmon micro-hatchery development (fiscal year 1994 & fiscal
    year 1995)
        Toklat fall chum salmon productivity analysis (fiscal year 1994-
    fiscal year 1999)
        Pilot Station main river salmon counting sonar operations (fiscal
    year 1994)
        Anvik River terminal harvest test seine fishery (fiscal year 1994)
        Kaltag Creek salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
    1999)
        Nulato River salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
    1999)
        Tanana Village salmon abundance test fishwheels (fiscal year 1994-
    fiscal year 1999)
        Mountain Village fall chum salmon abundance test fishery (fiscal
    year 1995-fiscal year 1999)
        Andreafski River coho salmon counting weir (fiscal year 1995-fiscal
    year 1999)
        Galena village fall chum salmon abundance test fishwheel (fiscal
    year 1995)
        Tanana River fall chum tag & recapture population estimate (fiscal
    year 1995-fiscal year 1999)
        Clear Creek salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
    1999)
        Pilot Station sonar local Native technician (fiscal year 1996-
    fiscal year 1999)
        Nenana River salmon spawning surveys (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
    1999)
        Lower Yukon (Emmonak) local Native fishery technician (fiscal year
    1997-fiscal year 1999)
        Public forums: subsistence management plans & project planning
    (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year 1999)
    Kuskokwim River
        Eek Island salmon abundance gillnet test fishery (fiscal year 1994)
        Aniak River coho salmon counting sonar (fiscal year 1994)
        Nunivak Island salmon abundance study (fiscal year 1994 & fiscal
    year 1995)
        Chum salmon migration timing and spawning distribution study
    (fiscal year 1995)
        Kanektok, Takotna and Kwethluk salmon counting towers (fiscal year
    1996-fiscal year 1999)
        George River salmon counting weir (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
    1999)
        Aniak River sonar local Native technician (fiscal year 1996-fiscal
    year 1999)
        Tatlawiksuk River salmon counting weir (fiscal year 1999)
        Public forums: inseason management and project planning (fiscal
    year 1996-fiscal year 1999)
    Bristol Bay
        Wood River coho salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994)
        For all of these projects BSFA has worked directly with and
    subcontracted with regional Native non-profit associations such as:
      --Kawerak, Inc. (Norton Sound)
      --Tanana Chiefs Conference (Yukon River)
      --Association of Village Council Presidents (Kuskokwim & Yukon
            Rivers)
      --Kuskokwim Native Association (Kuskokwim River) and also with the
            individual traditional/IRA councils of the villages of Emmonak,
            Mountain Village, St. Mary's, Andreafski, Kaltag, Nulato,
            Galena, Tanana, Kwinhagak and Takotna and as well as individual
            fishermen.
        Through using the BIA appropriation as matching funds, BSFA has
    also leveraged several thousands dollars of project support from the
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
    and the Bureau of Land Management. Finally, these BSFA-administered
    projects were implemented with a low indirect rate of less than 15
    percent.
          fiscal year 2000 appropriation designation & research plans
        Although the program has helped to rebuild some of the individual
    salmon returns, most AYK salmon streams require continued monitoring
    and restoration efforts. Maintaining this appropriation is critical to
    ensuring effective salmon management so that sustained yield is
    maintained, tribal capabilities are developed and rural subsistence
    salmon harvest needs are met.
        As the committee may know the 1998 season saw widespread salmon run
    failures throughout western Alaska. Not only were chum salmon returns
    weak in the 1993 crash but chinook returns were unexpectedly poor and
    coho and sockeye returns were also below average. This unforeseen crash
    points out the need for research into freshwater and ocean survival of
    salmon in addition to the standard baseline studies of adult spawning
    escapement studies. Studies aimed at estimating total population are
    also warranted.
        Therefore BSFA requests a continued subcommittee designation to
    Bering Sea Fishermen's Association of the $805,000 budgeted for Arctic-
    Yukon-Kuskokwim Salmon Investigations within the BIA's fiscal year 1999
    Wildlife & Parks, Tribal Management & Development budget section. We
    also urge the subcommittee to designate an additional $700,000 to BSFA
    to respond to the multispecies salmon run failure of 1998.
        If the additional $700,000 is secured BSFA would likely undertake
    some of the following studies to aid in the management and rebuilding
    of western Alaska salmon stocks. These studies would include sockeye
    salmon lake fertilization and expanded chum salmon incubation projects
    in Norton Sound; a chinook salmon population estimate and freshwater
    survival studies in the Yukon River; and expanded sockeye and coho
    escapement monitoring and a chinook population estimate in the
    Kuskokwim River.
        BSFA will continue to work with and contract with local and
    regional Alaska Native organizations and other appropriate entities as
    well as with individual fishermen. BSFA is the only group that
    represents and works with all fishermen (commercial and subsistence)
    and villagers throughout the entire Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region. BSFA
    Board and staff are intimately familiar with salmon research needs in
    the A-Y-K region. Having BSFA as the single responsible program
    management entity will assure both the development of tribal
    capabilities and the fulfillment of the intent of Congress to rebuild
    salmon returns in an efficient manner.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony
    concerning appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
        The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
    regarding the Tribe's fiscal year 2000 request for $1,199,500 from
    programs in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Tribe asks:
      --that Congress provide $1,000,000 from the Critical Ecosystem
            Studies Initiative (CESI) account in the National Park Service
            budget for the Seminole Tribe for activities related to the
            Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative on the Big Cypress
            Reservation;
      --that Congress provide $199,500 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs
            for water quality studies, as a part of the Tribe's Everglades
            restoration efforts.
        In addition to this specific request for the Tribe's programs, we
    request that Congress fund the CESI account at the same level it has
    been funded in the last two fiscal years, $12 million. The
    Administration cut the CESI account by one-third, despite the important
    research that it funds; such research helps support critical Everglades
    ecosystem restoration. The Tribe requests that Congress the restore the
    $4 million cut to the CESI account.
        The Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is a comprehensive
    water conservation system designed to improve the water quality and
    natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress Basin. This project will
    contribute to the overall success of both the federal and the state
    governments' multi-agency effort to preserve and restore the delicate
    ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In recognition of this
    contribution, the Seminole Tribe's Restoration Initiative has been
    endorsed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and has
    been found to be consistent with the recommendations of the Governor's
    Commission for a Sustainable South Florida.
        The Seminole Tribe has been working with the US Army Corps of
    Engineers (COE) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
    (NRCS) to identify programs that could fund the Tribe's Everglades
    Restoration Initiative. At this time, the western portion of the Big
    Cypress Reservation, along with a canal that transverses the
    Reservation, has been identified as a Critical Project under the
    authority of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 1996).
    The NRCS has identified a number of Farm Bill programs suitable for
    funding the design, planning, and construction of the project on the
    eastern portion of the Reservation. The funds provided by the DOI have
    made it possible for the Tribe to do the research necessary to allow
    the COE and NRCS to complete final project designs. In addition, the
    Tribe continues to spend Tribal funds to advance the research and
    design and is prepared to provide the required cost share payments as
    required by the different federal programs.
                         the seminole tribe of florida
        The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
    Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
    Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
    members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
    religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
    endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
    the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
    members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
        During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
    protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
    filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
    would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
    the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
    sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
    cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
    sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
    chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
    to the earth to nourish the soil.
        In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
    Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
    for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
    looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
    that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
    At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
    people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
    elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
    the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
    themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
    also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
        Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
    with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
    and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
    future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
    allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
    while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
    large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
    positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
    National Park.
        The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
    degradation wrought by decades of federal flood control construction
    and polluted urban and agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet flow
    and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the spread
    of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid spread
    of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and sawgrass
    necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the
    wildlife of the Everglades.
        The Seminole Everglades Restoration project was designed to allow
    the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
    Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
    quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
    committed significant resources to the design of this project and to
    our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing
    to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural
    survival is at stake.
        In addition to addressing the ecosystem concerns related to the Big
    Cypress Reservation, the Tribe has been actively involved in the
    development of the ecosystem-wide restoration plan. The Tribe, as an
    active member of both the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
    Florida and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and
    Working Group, has worked cooperatively with our neighbors to design a
    sustainable future for all of South Florida.
                seminole tribe everglades restoration initiative
        The DOI, through the BIA, has provided the Tribe with $199,500 in
    each of the fiscal years 1994 through 1999. In addition, through the
    NPS, Interior provided the Tribe with $390,000 in fiscal year 1997 and
    $920,000 in fiscal year 1998. A $1 million appropriation was provided
    to both the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes in the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation cycle; the Tribe is working with the Task Force and
    Everglades National Park to decide how to split the funding. The Tribe
    is using these funds to monitor and analyze the quality and quantity of
    water coming onto and leaving the Reservation and to conduct scientific
    studies to determine nutrient impacts. For example, the Tribe plans to
    study the assimilative capacity of the C&SF canals for nutrients,
    phosphorus in particular. The results of such monitoring and studies
    will be available to others studying Everglades degradation and
    developing plans to arrest the harm.
        The Tribe has also developed a conceptual plan that will enable us
    to meet new water quality standards essential to the cleanup of our
    part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the storage and
    conveyance of our water rights. The appropriated funds have also been
    used to design the Tribe's best management practices program, with the
    assistance of the NRCS. We continue to use available funds to further
    the design and planning work necessary to implement our Everglades
    Restoration Initiative.
        The Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is designed to
    mitigate the degradation the Everglades has suffered through decades of
    flood control projects and urban and agricultural use and ultimately to
    restore the nation's largest wetlands to a healthy state. Our
    Everglades Restoration Initiative will enable the Tribe:
      --to collect and monitor data to establish a baseline and to evaluate
            performance of the overall system design;
      --to design and construct surface water management systems to remove
            phosphorus, convey and store irrigation water, improve flood
            control, and rehydrate the Big Cypress National Preserve;
      --to commit to the long-term operation and maintenance of new water
            management systems; and
      --to design and implement comprehensive best management practices for
            the Big Cypress Reservation.
        This project will enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target
    for low phosphorus concentrations that is being used for design
    purposes by state and federal authorities. It will also provide an
    important public benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the
    western basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is
    vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of lands within the
    Preserve.
        As discussed in the introduction, the Tribe will continue to work
    with the COE and the NRCS to satisfy the requirements of these
    agencies' respective programs. Once again, the funding requested in
    this testimony is crucial because such funds will allow the Tribe to
    continue to develop the data and design information that is required
    for the design, planning, and construction of the Everglades
    Restoration Initiative. In addition, the results of studies the Tribe
    helps pay for with both the CESI funds from NPS and the BIA funds will
    be applicable to other entities supporting Everglades restoration.

                                   conclusion
        Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
    Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
    restoring the Everglades for future generations. By granting this
    appropriation request, the federal government will be taking a
    substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water
    that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate
    Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big
    Cypress Reservation, which is federal land held in trust for the Tribe,
    will send a clear message that the federal government is committed to
    Everglades restoration.
        The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work
    immediately. Doing so will require substantial commitments from the
    Tribe, including the dedication of over 9,000 acres of land for water
    management improvements. However, if the Tribe is to move forward with
    its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a
    substantially higher level of federal financial assistance will be
    needed as well.
        The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
    Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the federal
    government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
    just The Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
    supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
    Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
    Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
    information upon request.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Jimmie C. Begay, Executive Director, Rock Point
                      Community School, the Navajo Nation
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We, the representatives
    of Rock Point Community School wish to express our appreciation for
    this opportunity to share our concerns in connection with the education
    of our children and the education of the Native American students
    generally.
        Whereas the entire Nation is striving to achieve highest output of
    our education at secondary level in the world, we at Rock Point and
    American Indian students generally are far behind the national norm. We
    are unable to meet the average national standard to be achieved by the
    year 2000. We can neither hire nor retain properly trained and
    qualified teachers for want of adequate funds. Unlike most of urban and
    semi-urban schools in the USA, isolation in our case, and in the case
    of most of the schools on the Navajo Reservation is a major factor.
    Some incentives are required to hire and retain qualified teachers.
    Thus, we need some more funds to retain trained teachers, because the
    available funds to us are considerably less than the average national
    expenditure per student.
        Our main concerns are about funding for ISEP, Transportation,
    Administrative Costs, Operation and Maintenance and House for the
    School Staff members.
                   indian school equalization program (isep)
        This appropriation provides for the direct classroom instruction.
    Funds provided per Weighted Student Unit (WSU) in SY 1998-1999 was
    $3,199. Estimated WSU dollar value in the School Year 1999-2000 is
    $3,238. If the appropriation provides according to the President's
    request, it will be estimated $3,285 for SY 2000-01. In 1991, an ISEP
    Task Force had determined that $3,499 is the minimum need per WSU. In
    the SY 2000-01, 9 years after the recommendation, it is still far short
    of the need at that time. Cost of classroom instruction including
    annual step increase and increased cost of more trained and qualified
    teachers is increasing at 6.23 percent per year. To meet the national
    goal of year 2000 is not possible with the amount available. If the
    $3,499/WSU recommended in 1991 is to be achieved in the SY 2000-2001,
    at least $336,606,000 needs to be appropriated in the fiscal year 2000
    budget.
        Here at Rock Point Community School, we are not left with enough
    finances to purchase updated classroom supplies, text or library books
    or purchase of innovative instructional materials including computers
    and relevant software.
        Since the economy of the nation is upwards with savings in the
    national budget, the investment in education, more particularly of the
    Native American students will be the most important investment. This is
    also important if Congress wants the Native American students to be at
    par with other students in the development of national manpower to meet
    the challenges of the 21st century.
        We, therefore ask that the appropriation for ISEP be not less than
    $336,606,000.
                         transportation of the students
        In all these past years, a considerable portion of ISEP funds which
    is for classroom instruction has been used to pay for the
    transportation of students, further aggravating the minimum needs of
    the classrooms. The national average expenditure for a mile of
    transportation in the School Year 1993-1994 was $2.92, but we received
    only $2.10 per mile in the current School Year. If we really do not
    touch dollars from classroom instruction for the transportation of
    students, appropriation should not be less than $48,330,000 to yield at
    national rate of six school years ago. Even then we will have to use
    some classroom instruction funds to make up for the rising cost of
    mileage and rental from GSA. President's budget request at $38.8
    million which will yield $2.35 per mile is still far below the need 6
    years ago.
        This does not include the cost of transportation for extra-
    curricular activities, which is part of the total educational growth of
    the students. This cost eats away another substantial portion of our
    transportation budget, further eroding the dollars meant for classroom
    instruction.
        We ask that appropriation for this be not less than $48 million.
    This will be the most appropriate way of meeting the transportation
    costs, although we will still have to use some ISEP funds for
    transportation, but at lesser rate.
                           administrative cost grants
        One of the most pressing concerns is funding for the Administrative
    Cost Grants.
        In the SY 1999, there were 117 schools under grant or contract and
    only 68 operated by BIA. In the School Year 2000-01 there will be only
    56 schools operated by BIA, the rest 129 to be operated by Native
    American Communities. Out of this, at least 10 schools are projected to
    be grant schools only on Navajo Reservation. The administrative and
    technical support functions previously provided by BIA at Agency or
    Area level are now mostly the responsibility of the Contract and Grant
    schools. This is besides the usual contractual and administrative
    function for which this fund is allocated. But the Administrative Cost
    appropriation has remained almost the same for several years at $42.2
    million in spite of the increase of the number of grant and contract
    schools. The responsibility of managing the Bureau funded schools will
    fall 100 percent on the Native American communities by converting BIA
    operated schools to grant or contract schools in the years to follow.
    Except for one year, the need generated by the Admin Cost formula
    established in PL 100-297 has never been met at 100 percent.
        If Congress is seriously supportive of self-determination for
    education, appropriation at $47,610,000 for the School Year 2000-2001
    as asked by the Administration's budget will not be adequate. It must
    be at least $50 million to get closer to the needed amount for every
    school.
                          housing for school employees
        It is worth noting that there are only 52 units of housing at Rock
    Pont against an average of 130 employees. These units were built in the
    1960's and 1970's and constantly need repair and large amounts of
    maintenance. We do not have any other housing available in the
    community for renting nor there is any project for building houses for
    the community by the Tribal Housing Authority. The Community itself
    stands in need of housing for the growing population.
        Yet the President's budget has been reduced from last year's $3
    million appropriation to $2.5 million. We feel that Rock Point
    Community School's housing problem should be addressed as soon as
    possible in order to retain and recruit trained and qualified teachers.
    Housing may appear to be non classroom function. But it has direct
    impact on classroom instruction. If qualified teachers are not
    available for want of housing or are not retained because of poor
    living conditions, how can we improve the quality of instruction?
        At least an estimated $4 million will be needed to replace old and
    dilapidated housing units at Rock Point Community School alone. We ask
    you to increase the education housing budget.
                    operation and maintenance of facilities
        There are two points we wish to submit to you. The BIA's budget
    request has separated the funding for ``operation'' and ``maintenance''
    of facilities with the explanation that they want to avoid the ``co-
    mingling of funds''. By this, BIA seems to be trying to dictate how
    much of its allowance a local school can spend for each. This is
    unnecessary and unwise. Circumstances differ widely at school
    locations. The local school board must have the flexibility to spend
    its facilities funds on operation and maintenance as its local needs
    require. We ask you to reject BIA's proposal to separate these two
    items.
        The more important issue is that the combined amount for facilities
    operation and maintenance remains at only about \2/3\ of the amount
    needed to properly operate and prudently maintain our facilities. As
    the Bureau itself acknowledges, our federally-owned facilities are
    deteriorating at a fast pace when there is not enough funding to fully
    maintain them. The United States has invested millions of dollars in
    building school facilities--such as the new Rock Point High School. It
    is in your interests as well as our to protect the federal government's
    investment and assure that the buildings are maintained so they can be
    enjoyed for their full useful life.
        We ask the Subcommittee to fund a combined ``facilities operation
    and maintenance'' budget at $118 million.
        Thank you for consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim E. Gilmartin, Mayor, Metlakatla Indian
                                   Community
        The Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Islands Reserve in
    southeast Alaska provides this statement on the fiscal year 2000 budget
    requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
    Service.
        The industries which have in the past provided an economic base for
    the Metlakatla Indian Community--fishing and timber--are all but
    defunct. Our extremely depressed economy, combined with issues
    associated with our remote island location, lead us to bring to your
    attention our need for a health clinic and more law enforcement
    resources which meet our unique circumstances. Our Reserve is the only
    Indian reservation in the country with a maritime boundary. Thus,
    Metlakatla's law enforcement responsibilities include jurisdiction over
    not only the 1,500 to 2,000 residents and approximately 90,000 acres of
    uplands, but almost 50,000 acres of ocean waters as well.
        We respectfully request the Subcommittee to recommend:
      --IHS funding for design ($1.3 million) and construction of a health
            center
      --Increased BIA funding for Law Enforcement, with special attention
            paid to our unique law enforcement responsibilities
      --General increase in BIA funding for Tribal Priority Allocations
                          ihs fiscal year 2000 budget
        Annette Island Service Unit Health Center. We have a health care
    emergency in the Metlakatla Indian Community. Our only health care
    clinic--the Annette Islands Service Unit Health Center--is literally
    falling apart, posing real safety risks for our clients and employees.
    The state of our buildings is the sole reason we cannot meet the
    standards of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care
    Organizations. It has become a full-time job just to keep the health
    center buildings patched together enough to remain open. But we must
    keep the Metlakatla health center open since it is the sole source of
    health care on the Annette Islands Reserve.
        We desperately need $1.3 million for design of a replacement clinic
    and quarters and additional funding for construction. The total
    estimated cost for a clinic and quarters is $16 million.
        Modular Health Center.--Our health center consists of four modular
    buildings, which are set on pilings and are connected by open, elevated
    wooden walkways. They house a medical clinic (the oldest and largest of
    the buildings, and the one in the worst condition), a family services
    center, a dental clinic, and administrative offices. Over time the
    buildings have settled unevenly, posing an unsafe environment for
    people seeking health services (18,000+ visits per year).
        ``Not Suitable for Renovation''.--The Indian Health Service has
    classified our health center as not suitable for renovation due to
    structural limitations. Yet we continually scramble for funding to make
    emergency repairs which will allow us to continue to provide health
    services. Cost estimates for repairs necessary to achieve compliance
    with current fire, mechanical, electrical and life safety codes, as
    well as the Uniform Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities
    Act guidelines is over $1 million. Our Maintenance and Improvement
    funds are not adequate to meet these needs. Further, the buildings will
    never be able to be fixed for anything approaching long-term usage.
        Falling Walls and Other Repairs.--Indicative of the worsening
    structural condition of the clinic is that when the temperature drops
    below freezing and then warms up, the clinic walls drop and separate.
    Recently, the southeast wall of the Medical Records room dropped and
    separated 1\1/2\ inches, causing the floor to buckle in the Family
    Services building. All staff and equipment had to be displaced from the
    Family Services building for safety reasons. The x-ray room on the
    north end of the building was similarly affected this year when that
    wall dropped and separated. In that instance, we obtained a $13,000
    grant to lift the pilings and move the wall back in place. This is not
    a permanent fix, and, in fact, settling and cracking of the walls
    continue to this day.
        Other recent repairs include: replacement of domestic hot and cold
    water piping in the Medical and the Dental Clinics and a portion of the
    Family Service Building; insulation of the new piping; installation of
    a circulating pump to try to prevent pipes from freezing; repair of the
    waste piping in the crawl spaces; and replacement of the rotting
    emergency room and patient room floors.
        Sick Building Syndrome/ADA Noncompliance.--The IHS October 1996
    Deep Look Survey of our health center noted that some rooms have no
    heat and that ``no ventilation is provided to the facilities, resulting
    in very poor indoor air quality and sick building syndrome, especially
    in the clinic. The buildings get hot in the summer due to no air
    conditioning being provided. The problem is especially severe in the
    clinic where temperatures have reached over 38 degrees centigrade and
    the building occupants have passed out because of the heat.''
        Among the findings of the Deep Look Survey are: corridor widths,
    number of exits and toilet facilities are not in compliance with the
    ADA guidelines; waste piping systems are sloped in the wrong direction
    and sag in all buildings except the dental clinic; electrical systems
    in the clinic and administration buildings are not grounded; asbestos
    in the ceilings; and roofing and gutter systems need to be replaced.
    The most recent Deep Look survey, however, was done prior to the
    phenomena of the clinic walls dropping and separating.
        IHS Priority List.--The Annette Islands Service Unit Health Center
    is on the IHS construction priority list. The Administration requested
    $3.7 million in fiscal year 2000 for design of the Red Mesa and Pawnee
    clinics. Next on the list after them is St. Paul, Alaska and
    Metlakatla. St. Paul, whose service population includes a large non-
    Indian tourist and fishing population, may be able to obtain design
    money from another federal agency. We ask Congress to provide enough
    funds in the fiscal year 2000 IHS budget to allow the Metlakatla Indian
    Community to design and begin construction of its desperately needed
    health center.
                          bia fiscal year 2000 budget
        Law Enforcement. The inherent difficulties associated with Indian
    reservation law enforcement, such as inadequate funding, poor equipment
    and facilities, and difficult working conditions, are compounded by the
    stark isolation of the Reserve. The Reserve is reachable only by boat
    or, weather permitting, by small float planes. It's small police force
    and limited court system are taxed heavily by the needs of the resident
    Indian population. Additionally, under federal law, except for
    fisheries enforcement, non-Indian residents and visitors are not
    subject to tribal criminal authority. The Islands have no resident
    state or federal law enforcement personnel or court system. Therefore,
    absent a crime taken seriously by state authorities, non-Indian
    criminal conduct is virtually free from jeopardy.
        Staffing.--Finding and keeping adequate manpower to properly staff
    Metlakatla's police force is a continual problem. The Community simply
    cannot meet the salary expectations of trained law enforcement
    personnel. Isolation, inadequate housing and high living costs add to
    this difficulty.
        Metlakatla's off-shore law enforcement responsibility is
    particularly under-manned and under-funded. Our maritime boundary
    extends 3,000 feet off-shore over the entire circumference of the
    islands, approximately 60 miles. The Community has never been able to
    fund more than a single, low-speed vessel and one officer to patrol the
    entire area. This level of enforcement is simply inadequate to meet the
    need. The principal beneficiaries of the absence of enforcement are the
    non-resident charter fleet who profit from Metlakatla's resources but
    pay no heed to its laws. Metlakatla needs more personnel and better
    vessels to do its job properly.
        In spite of the recent heightened interest in law enforcement
    problems on Indian reservations, many of Metlakatla's unmet or
    underfunded law enforcement needs continue to remain unaddressed due to
    the allocation priorities established by the Bureau. For instance,
    funding for our patrol boats should be considered on par with funding
    for squad cars, but it is not. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to
    support the Administration's requested increase of $20 million for the
    BIA Law Enforcement program and also ask that the BIA allocation
    priorities give fair treatment to the unique needs of the Metlakatla
    Indian Community.
        Tribal Priority Allocation. The Community was deeply disappointed
    that the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request did not
    include a general increase for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)
    funding. Instead, the Administration proposed targeted increases of $17
    million, of which less than $6 million is for programs or services for
    the benefit tribal members. The Community continues to experience major
    levels of unmet need in the areas of Education-Scholarships, Other
    Rights Protection (which we utilize for fisheries and boundary
    enforcement activities), Resources Management, and Aid to Tribal
    Government--categories which are not covered by the Administration's
    targeted increases.
        We urge that Congress provide a general increase in TPA funding to
    begin to address the disparity in funding of tribal programs as
    compared to funding provided to other governmental entities to provide
    similar governmental services.
        Contract Support. The Community supports the $6.45 million increase
    requested by the Administration. However, the Bureau estimates that the
    current on-going shortfall is about $24 million. We respectfully
    request that Congress fund at least the amount identified in the budget
    request, and defer action on policy and distribution methodologies
    until the National Congress of American Indians national workgroup on
    contract support completes its work on this matter.
        On behalf of the Metlakatla Indian Community, we appreciate the
    opportunity to provide our views to the Subcommittee regarding the
    Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs budgets for fiscal
    year 2000. Metlakatla Testimony
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
        The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe \1\ comes before the Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee to tell you about the miscarriages, still
    births, and infant mortality that has dominated our lives since 1988
    and to ask for your assistance and guidance. Between 1988 and 1992 we
    had an infant mortality rate of 53 percent. Last year, 89 percent of
    pregnancies on our reservation ended in adverse outcomes, and we are
    concerned that this scourge may be spreading beyond our tribal
    boundaries and is becoming a regional problem. We ask that the fiscal
    year 2000 Indian Health Service budget provide:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Shoalwater Indian Reservation (as set aside by Executive
    Order on September 1866), is located in the coastal Pacific County in
    the state of Washington. This small, remote Reservation consisting of
    approximately 1,034 acres, including tidelands, is situated on Willapa
    Bay at North Cove. According to the 1997 Indian Labor Force Report, 30
    percent of the Shoalwater Bay labor force was unemployed. And of those
    who were employed, 19 percent were living below the poverty line.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --$1,037,000 for the Shoalwater Bay Tribe for a range of preventive,
            monitoring, testing and social intervention measures regarding
            miscarriage and infant mortality. We attach a one-page summary
            of items which comprise this appropriations request.
        Investigations into Shoalwater Bay Miscarriages and Infant
    Mortality.--There have been a number of investigations and
    recommendations from an array of agencies regarding the incidences of
    miscarriage, stillbirth, and infant mortality at Shoalwater. Below is a
    summary of these activities:
      --Joint Tribal/IHS/Washington Report (1994).--Investigations
            conducted by the Tribe, Indian Health Service, and Washington
            State Department of Health focused on three areas of concern in
            response to emergency: (1) lack of adequate health care; (2)
            the need to establish a Health Concerns Advisory Committee: and
            (3) possible exposure of community members to environmental
            toxins. As a result of the investigation, a report, The
            Pregnancy and Infant Mortality Emergency of the Shoalwater Bay
            Reservation, Washington State: A Joint Report of Findings
            issued by the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Council, Indian Health
            Service, and Washington State Department of Health--October 27,
            1994 (SBIT/WA ST Joint Report), was released. This report
            outlined recommendations to improve the quality and
            availability of health care while also conducting a
            comprehensive and definitive environmental health risk
            assessment.
        In order to address the concerns over lack of access to adequate
    health care, the Tribe sought help at the local level, regional level,
    and finally the national level in Washington D.C. This resulted in a
    fiscal year 1995 Congressional appropriation of $250,000 to be used to
    establish a clinic on the tribal reservation and to provide mental
    health care services. These funds along with additional funding secured
    over a three-year period made it possible for the Tribe to assume local
    control of its health care needs. The Tribal Clinic and Health
    Department has continued to grow and now serves over 700 local Native
    Americans and employs 10 staff, including a full time physician,
    dentist, nurse, mental health professional and substance abuse
    counselor.
        The second area of concern identified by the report was the need
    for the Tribe to enlist outside expertise. Consequently, in 1994, the
    Shoalwater Bay Health Concerns Advisory Committee (SBHCAC) was formed.
    The task force consists of representatives from the Center for Disease
    Control (CDC), Indian Health Service (IHS), the Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), the American Medical Association (AMA), Washington
    Department of Health (WDOH), the University of Washington (UW), and
    independent epidemiologists. SBHCAC is still active and continues to be
    a guiding force in health-related actions taken by the Shoalwater Bay
    Tribe.
      --EPA Limited Assessment (1994-1995).--It had been suggested in the
            SBIT/WA ST Joint Report that environmental pathways may have
            been responsible for the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe's
            reproductive health crisis. Consequently, Congress charged the
            Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the responsibility
            of performing a definitive environmental assessment of the
            Reservation. However, because of budgetary constraints, EPA was
            only able to do a very limited ``snap shot'' study which
            resulted in the following list of strong recommendations
            outlined by in Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe--A Limited
            Assessment: 1994-1995:
      --Screen ground water possibly contaminated by runoff from cranberry
            bogs for pesticides and other organic compounds.
      --Monitor air quality during aerial pesticide application events.
      --Perform further studies of the long-term ecological impact of the
            extremely toxic pesticide, carbaryl, routinely applied on
            tidelands adjacent to the Reservation.
      --Work with shellfish farmers to develop less draconian methods of
            controlling mud shrimp populations.
      --Monitor adjacent abandoned military site to better understand the
            source, fate and impact of unusual bromo-and iodo-compounds
            found at the site.
      --Augment and strengthen database for organomercury compounds (found
            in pesticides) in local sediment samples.
      --Examine affect of carbaryl and glyphosate pesticides on the Willapa
            ecosystem. Collect sediment samples immediately after spraying.
      --Perform an extensive study of the entire cranberry drainage area to
            determine the extent of sediment contamination and destination
            of contaminated sediment.
      --Perform in-stream monitoring, especially via aquatic bioassays to
            determine cumulative effects of the use of different pesticides
            and herbicides in cranberry growing area.
      --Because Tribal members consume relatively large amounts of fish and
            shellfish, selective tissue analysis of some sustenance
            organisms should be performed.
        Unfortunately, no funding was allotted to the Tribe to implement
    programs necessary to follow through on all these recommendations. The
    Shoalwater Bay Reservation is fairly isolated with the nearest
    laboratory facility 150 miles from the Reservation. Limited funding and
    isolation coupled with prohibitive costs of commercial lab testing have
    made it impossible to adequately address all the recommendations made
    by EPA. The most important issue relating to addressing environmental
    pollution on the Reservation is the further development of the Tribal
    Environmental Testing Laboratory. This will enable the Tribe to build
    the capacity to more closely follow EPA's recommendations by making it
    possible and affordable to put a comprehensive year-round monitoring
    plan in place.(Estimated funding requirements needed to initiate this
    project are outlined in the attached budget.)
        Presently, the Tribe has been able to establish only a few very
    limited environmental monitoring projects on the Reservation with
    assistance from newly formed relationships with agencies such as EPA
    and Administration for Native Americans (ANA). These projects include
    water quality monitoring of the cranberry drainage ditches known to be
    contaminated with pesticides, monitoring water quality and sediments
    from an abandoned military site suspected of having toxic materials
    buried there, and the monitoring of Tribal tidelands for the presence
    of pesticides and fecal coliform bacteria.
      --Centers for Disease Control (1998-1999).--Despite all these
            efforts, the reproductive health crisis continues to plague the
            Shoalwater Bay community. Members were devastated to learn that
            health statistics collected from the Tribal Health Program
            showed that, as of September 1998, 80 percent of the
            pregnancies ending for the year-to-date had resulted in adverse
            outcomes. By the end of the year, four more pregnancies were
            lost to miscarriages, raising the incidence of adverse outcomes
            for pregnancies ending in 1998, to nearly 89 percent.
        In November 1998 the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Council appointed a
    committee to investigate the situation on the Reservation, gather
    information on adverse pregnancy outcomes, and then to prepare a
    report. In December, the committee conferred with Pacific County Health
    Department and the SBHCAC. After a comprehensive analysis of clinical
    data was performed, the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Council and Pacific
    County Board of Commissioners jointly submitted a request for
    assistance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
        After reviewing the clinical data, CDC responded immediately by
    sending a team of epidemiologists to the Shoalwater Bay Indian
    Reservation to perform a study of alarmingly high occurrences of
    adverse pregnancy outcomes. The final report from CDC is not yet
    finished, but will be made available upon completion in mid-April.
        Based upon discussions with SBHCAC, CDC, and Pacific County Health
    Department, the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe determined that the
    following steps would best address the Tribe's reproductive health
    issues:
      --Implement high-risk pregnancy protocols in hopes of decreasing risk
            of adverse pregnancy outcomes by allowing early identification
            of pregnancy related problems. Initially this would have to be
            done at a distance with UW and Tacoma General. The Tribe and
            the County Health Department are working together to establish
            the protocols in hopes of emulating the UW program in a
            regional fashion.
      --Hire a community health nurse to provide in-home support, education
            and ongoing monitoring of pregnant mothers and their families.
            This person would also need to have an extensive grief
            counseling background and be able to assist in identification
            and coordination of community resources while providing general
            health education and wellness promotion to all the community
            members.
      --Implement a monitoring and data tracking system to track all Native
            Americans and all Shoalwater Bay Tribal members as related to
            pregnancies, chronic health conditions, and overall wellness.
            Establish a data base of health information to serve as an
            early warning system for negative health indicators that would
            be coordinated with the Grays Harbor and Pacific County
            monitoring systems to allow examination of data on a regional
            basis for possible trends in local populations.
      --Implement psycho-social intervention including grief counseling and
            obtain a contract for psychiatric consultations to assist
            Tribal Clinic providers in care delivery.
      --Work with a local pathology lab to store frozen samples from
            miscarriages to allow genetic testing and screening for
            possible toxins. This would involve coordination with the
            environmental testing of water, air and soil to identify
            possible agents of contamination to test for in the tissue.
      --Support development of Tribal Environmental Testing Laboratory
            (initiated in 1998), that will allow for routine testing of
            water quality and sediments.
        This list is by no means definitive, and although health costs
    change rapidly, the Tribe has outlined its estimated funding needs in
    the attached budget.
                                   discussion
        It is the hope of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe that the
    strategies outlined above will provide the capacity to gain the
    information necessary to better understand the nature of the
    reproductive health crisis. By developing the means to monitor
    pregnancies and to perform tissue analyses, in the event that more
    losses do occur, a determination can be made as to the presence or
    absence of toxic compounds. Further, by developing the capacity of the
    Tribe to monitor its environment, those compounds isolated in tissue
    samples can be compared with the myriad of environmental pollutants
    routinely found in high concentrations on Shoalwater Bay Tribal land
    and in Tribal water.
        The Tribe realizes that it must continue to work closely with
    Pacific County Health Department to determine whether or not the
    problem is confined to the Reservation or if it is a regional problem.
    Furthermore, the Tribe recognizes that they must work closely with
    Federal, State, and local governments to find the resources necessary
    to develop a sound health care system. Moreover, the Tribe must acquire
    the necessary resources to ensure the success of the newly developed
    Tribal Environmental-testing laboratory (initiated in 1998). Finally,
    the Tribe realizes that it must follow-up on the recommendations made
    in the EPA report mentioned previously.
        The Shoalwater Bay Indian People realize that it will be difficult,
    if not impossible, to readily determine the cause for the loss of
    nearly an entire generation of Shoalwater babies. But what those
    outside the Tribe do not realize is that the survival of an entire
    nation--the sum total of its traditions and culture--is in danger of
    being lost forever. And although this tragedy, at times seems
    impossible to overcome, the Shoalwater People are determined. And
    consistent with the spirit exemplified by the Shoalwater Bay Indian
    Tribe, they will continue to fight for their survival in the same way
    their ancestors fought. But they need help.
                          shoalwater bay indian tribe
    Budget addendum to testimony before the Interior appropriations
            subcommittee
        1. Implement High Risk Pregnancy Protocols for all expectant
    mothers in the community. This would involve transportation to and from
    appointments in Tacoma or Seattle to visit OB-GYNs specializing in High
    Risk Pregnancies and deliveries. Since this cost is directly related to
    the number of pregnancies in the community each year, it is very
    difficult to estimate. Using $20,000 per pregnancy with possibly 10
    pregnancies per year plus $30,000 for a transportation program. The
    tribe will work closely with local providers to develop these protocols
    so that the mothers will be able to remain in the community and follow
    these protocols.--$230,000 estimated annually
        2. Tissue testing for genetic abnormalities and environmental
    toxins. We are still working with the SBHCAC to establish the protocols
    for this program. A relationship with the local pathology lab is being
    developed along with the list of toxins to begin testing for in the
    tissue samples.--$60,000 estimated annually
        3. Hire a full-time Community Health Nurse to provide in home
    health care and education to expectant mothers and their families while
    also addressing grief counseling needs when necessary. This could be a
    position funded cooperatively through the County Health Dept.--$60,000
    annually (includes salary, benefits)
        4. Implement a monitoring system of all Native Americans and non-
    tribal community members in the service area through full utilization
    of the Patient Care Component module within the I.H.S. RPMS computer
    software system. This combined with an annual survey of all Shoalwater
    Bay Indian Tribal members would allow complete data collection of all
    health care information of community members. This information should
    allow us to identify health care trends within our community earlier so
    that an intervention can be coordinated.--$75,000 annual salary,
    benefits, and supplies
        5. Create and implement psycho-social intervention to include grief
    counseling and the purchase of psychiatric consultations with Tribal
    Clinic staff to assist them in mental health services referrals and
    care.--$52,000 estimated annually
        6. Support development of Tribal Environmental Testing Laboratory,
    which will enable the Tribe to perform routine monitoring over a three-
    year period. This will establish the baseline for the clinical testing
    of tissue samples for the presence of environmental toxins. This
    includes testing of water quality and sediments for unacceptable levels
    of pesticides, herbicides and fecal bacteria.--$560,000 one time
    emergency add-on
    Total request: $1,037,000 one-time emergency add-on and a recurring
            add-on of $477,000
        Please note that the costs for number 1 and 2 are directly linked
    to the number of pregnancies that occur in a year. This money could be
    set aside at Portland Area Indian Health Services and drawn down as
    each pregnancy occurs. With the current funding level, the Tribe cannot
    provide these services and ensure there will be enough funding to
    provide services through the entire fiscal year for the remaining
    service population.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Gerald J. Jones, Tribal Chairman, Port
                             Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
        As Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe from Washington
    State, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
    President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for tribal programs in the
    BIA and IHS. This statement is presented on behalf of my fellow elected
    Tribal Council members and on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam
    people.
        My testimony addresses four particular program areas for which the
    Tribe urges Congress to support funding increases in fiscal year 2000:
      --Shellfish and Endangered Species Funds. Request $420,000 for
            implementation of the U.S. v. Washington shellfish decision and
            for salmon recovery efforts necessitated by Endangered Species
            Act listing of salmon runs in our treaty area.
      --Law Enforcement. Support proposed increases through BIA and DOJ for
            additional tribal police personnel and tribal jail facilities.
      --Contract Support. Fully fund the BIA and IHS pools for funding
            tribal contract support needs, as required by law.
      --Tribal Courts. Support proposed increases through BIA and DOJ, and
            appropriate additional funds as authorized under the Indian
            Tribal Justice Act of 1993.
        Before I address these four specific areas, however, I would like
    to say that the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is very pleased with the
    number of significant proposed increases contained in the President's
    fiscal year 2000 budget request, including funding increases to the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Special Trustee for American
    Indians, Indian Health Service, Department of Justice, and Office of
    Indian Education. While we are mindful that, overall, Congress has less
    money to appropriate among all federal programs in fiscal year 2000
    than in fiscal year 1999, we strongly urge this Subcommittee to put as
    many additional resources into tribal programs as possible.
        justification of port gamble s'klallam priorities: tribal level
    Shellfish and endangered species
        In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, there are a number of
    proposed increases for the protection of endangered species and for
    salmon recovery efforts in the Department of the Interior and other
    federal agencies. The Tribe supports these increases. We also support
    the proposed $500,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the
    Secretarial Order regarding the implementation of the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA) on tribal lands, resources and rights.
        The Tribe supports the small proposed increase of $136,000 in
    fiscal year 2000 for Western Washington Fisheries Management, for a
    funding level of almost $5 million. In addition, we request that
    $420,000 be added for the Tribe to implement the recent U.S. v.
    Washington shellfish decision and the salmon recovery efforts
    necessitated by ESA listing of salmon runs.
        The Tribe's natural resources program has only been funded to meet
    the minimum court ordered requirements to allow the tribal harvest of
    #T3salmon. This stems from a 1974 federal court decision which affirmed
    the Tribe's treaty right to harvest and manage salmon. The Tribe has
    developed and now operates a fisheries management program that meets
    the requirements of court decisions, implements joint Tribal, State and
    Federal management plans and agreements, and maintains consistency with
    tribal values.
        In 1997, the Tribe's treaty right to harvest shellfish was
    reaffirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Tribe
    still cannot exercise this right unless it provides for the management
    and protection of the shellfish resource. The court decision requires
    the Tribe to collect and analyze data, conduct resource assessments,
    take measures to ensure the protection of public health and develop
    management plans with State agencies and private tideland owners.
        The Tribe now has the opportunity to utilize many species of
    shellfish, including deep-water animals such as crab, shrimp, and
    geoduck. Effectively managing these ``new'' shellfish resources, while
    providing for their protection, requires additional technical
    expertise. The additional shellfisheries will also require expanded
    enforcement efforts and capability. The opportunity is also available
    for the enhancement of tidelands to increase shellfish production. This
    will benefit both Indians and non-Indians.
        The Tribe cannot take advantage of the opportunity to harvest
    treaty resources unless we meet the court's requirements, and we cannot
    meet the requirements without additional funding. The Tribe has imposed
    a tax on the harvest of shellfish to fund a skeletal harvest program.
    This tax provides about $130,000 per year. This tax base cannot
    increase without opening new harvest opportunities. It is a ``Catch-
    22'' situation for the Tribe.
        Of equal concern, two species of salmon in our treaty area were
    listed recently as ``threatened'' under the ESA. The ESA listing has
    broad implications for tribal and non-tribal management of salmon. As
    co-managers of the salmon resource, the Tribe wants to be involved and
    is legally required to be involved in the development and
    implementation of plans to protect and recover depressed stocks of
    salmon. Unfortunately, the Tribe has virtually no tax base to support
    these activities because there can be no harvest of these species.
        To continue the Tribe's salmon management program and the
    additional requirements of both the shellfish decision and the ESA
    recovery planning efforts, the Tribe needs an additional $420,000 to
    employee a shellfish biologist, salmon biologist with a background in
    ESA issues, three technicians and the necessary support services and
    equipment, in addition to the Tribe's contribution of the proceeds from
    our harvest tax.
    Law enforcement
        Within the BIA's Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account is a
    proposed increase of $20 million for BIA Law Enforcement, for the
    second year of the joint Department of the Interior-Department of
    Justice Law Enforcement Initiative in Indian Country. The proposed
    increase will be for personnel, equipment and detention services. With
    an additional $3.3 million for uncontrollable costs for the BIA Law
    Enforcement Initiative and the transfer of law enforcement funding from
    Tribal Priority Allocations, the proposed fiscal year 2000 total for
    the BIA Law Enforcement Initiative is $141.3 million. We strongly
    support these requested additional resources for personnel and law
    enforcement services in Indian country.
        Although we know that the Department of Justice does not receive
    appropriations under this Subcommittee, we are aware that the fiscal
    year 2000 budget request proposes a total of $124.2 million through the
    Office of Justice Programs and other bureaus of the Justice Department
    as part of the joint DOJ-DOI initiative to improve law enforcement in
    Indian country. We hope that Congress will agree to provide the
    requested increases in fiscal year 2000 for additional attorneys to
    investigate and prosecute crime in Indian country; alcohol and
    substance abuse programs in Indian country; development and enhancement
    of tribal judicial systems; construction, renovation and repair of
    adult and juvenile correctional facilities and jails in Indian country;
    and education and training to police in Indian country. We strongly
    support these requested additional resources.
        The Port Gamble S'Klallam community has been confronted with a
    number of serious, new crime issues over the past couple of years,
    including illegal drugs and gang violence. Although our efforts to
    combat these problems have been undertaken in cooperation with local
    and federal law enforcement agencies, the Tribe continues to have a
    chronic shortage in police protection because there is not enough
    funding to provide salaries and equipment. To meet our goal of 24-hour
    police coverage on the reservation, we need a minimum total of six
    officers. Our level of need is $160,000 to fund additional officers,
    their equipment and training.
        In addition, the Tribe would like to begin the process of planning
    a tribal jail. Currently, we contract with neighboring counties for
    jail facilities. The nearest juvenile detention facility, more than an
    hour's drive from the reservation, is filled to capacity most of the
    time. Adult jail facilities are frequently full as well, posing a
    safety threat to our police officers and to the community. The Tribe
    needs $80,000 to plan a jail facility which could provide jail services
    to six area tribes, increase employment and generate revenue by renting
    jail space to local jurisdictions.
    Contract support
        We request that Congress fully fund the BIA and IHS pools for
    funding tribal contract support needs. Full funding is imperative for
    tribal contractors to meet the incidental needs and expenses associated
    with the programs they have assumed on behalf of the federal
    government.
        As the court determined in #T3Ramah Navajo v. Lujan, tribal
    contractors are entitled to receive the full amount of funds necessary
    to meet the costs of supporting the federal programs they have assumed
    under contracts and compacts. Despite this decision, the
    Administration's fiscal year 2000 requests for contract support funding
    remain short of meeting the full needs of tribal contractors.
        As a Self-Governance Tribe, we have assumed the responsibility for
    delivering governmental services directly to the local community. Self-
    Governance has been a dramatic success on our reservation. The Tribe's
    management of tribal programs has resulted in more cost effective and
    efficient delivery of services to the local community. Because of the
    contract support shortfall over the past six years, however, the gains
    we make in program delivery have been significantly diminished.
        If the shortfall continues through the upcoming fiscal year, our
    tribe will again be faced with making very difficult choices. Funds
    otherwise identified for a particular program must be used to cover the
    contract support shortfall. What makes the decisions all the more
    difficult is that cuts will be made to already underfunded programs,
    including daycare, education and senior citizen housing. As in years
    past, our food bank and emergency shelter programs face elimination
    again. The losers are the people to be served.
    Tribal courts
        In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, additional resources are
    requested for tribal courts. We urge this Subcommittee to support the
    requested increase of $2.6 million within the BIA's Tribal Priority
    Allocations account for Tribal Courts. We also wish to express our
    support for the $5 million requested in fiscal year 2000 through the
    Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Justice to provide
    financial and technical assistance for the development and enhancement
    of tribal judicial systems.
        However, we also wish to call to this Subcommittee's attention our
    dismay that tribal judicial systems are so inadequately funded.
    Although some funds have been appropriated pursuant to the Indian
    Tribal Justice Act of 1993, those appropriations have been nowhere near
    the level of funds authorized under the Act. We urge this Congress to
    provide additional resources.
        The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is proud of our tribal court, which
    is part of the Northwest Intertribal Court System. Our tribal
    enforcement and justice officials work in concert with federal and
    state law enforcement, prosecutors and courts to address the inter-
    jurisdictional problems associated with enforcement of child abuse,
    drug crimes, and child support on the Reservation. The court hears
    cases in twenty subject matter areas, including criminal, civil,
    traffic, child welfare, juvenile, domestic violence, hunting, fishing,
    housing, and adult protection. Our tribal court staff is made up of a
    judge, prosecutor, court administrator, court clerk, court compliance
    officer and support staff. This work requires having personnel
    available on nights and on weekends as well as the during the work
    week. The court facilities require space and equipment for the
    confidential work of the court which cannot be shared by other tribal
    departments. We are nearly two hours from the nearest law library and
    must have an updated reference base including Internet access located
    on site for the court's use. The court must also provide an effective
    appellate system to ensure due process.
        There are those in Congress and elsewhere who believe that
    individual civil rights are compromised in tribal justice systems.
    While our court provides high quality justice and we see no evidence of
    violations of individuals' civil rights in our court, a chronic lack of
    funding in our court and in all tribal courts hampers the efforts of
    tribal governments to provide all the necessary judicial services to
    their people. Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony
    on fiscal year 2000 funding for tribal programs.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Indian Education Association
        The National Indian Education Association (NIEA), the oldest
    national non-profit organization representing the education concerns of
    over 3,000 American Indian and Alaska Native educators, school
    administrators, teachers, parents, and students, is pleased to submit
    this statement on the President's fiscal year 2000 budget as it affects
    Indian education. NIEA has an elected board of 12 members who represent
    various Indian education programs and tribal constituencies from
    throughout the nation. The following is NIEA's funding recommendations
    for the BIA.
                             department of interior
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
        Within BIA's overall departmental framework are five categorical
    areas that contain education-related programs serving federally-
    recognized Indian tribes. The programs serve Indian students in K-12,
    postsecondary, and adult education programs either through direct
    funding from the BIA or indirectly through allocations to tribes. These
    programs include: Tribal Priority Allocations; School Operations;
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges; Special Programs and Pooled
    Overhead; and Education Construction. A separate line item for the
    Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA) funds postsecondary programs
    for Indian students in the arts. In the following paragraphs, we
    discuss specific BIA education programs and provide recommended levels
    of funding. A separate one page table is provided which shows our
    numbers compared to previous years as well as the Administration's
    request.
                Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)--$51,106,000
        Scholarships.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $28.6 million and is
    $919,000 less than fiscal year 1999. Since fiscal year 1994,
    allocations for tribal college scholarships have fallen from $31
    million to less than $29 million in the 2000 request. NIEA recommends
    $39 million for this scholarship program. Funding for Indian
    scholarships is one of the greatest need areas in Indian education and
    has declined significantly since fiscal year 1995. This trend needs to
    be reversed. The 1990 Census identified the majority of the Indian
    population as being under the age of 25 compared with 17 percent
    nationally. The BIA estimates that 9,800 students will be awarded
    scholarships through this program in fiscal year 1999 with an average
    award of $3,000. The reduced funding level means that more than 300
    students will be denied funding next year.
        Adult Education.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $2.6 million and
    is a reduction of $28,000 from fiscal year 1999. NIEA strongly
    recommends the program be funded at $4 million in fiscal year 2000.
    Next to Indian scholarships, adult education programs continue to be
    one of the most critically-needed areas in Indian communities. Adult
    education programs have a twofold purpose in allowing Indians adults
    who did not finish high school to obtain their General Educational
    Development (GED) degree and/or increase their life-coping skills.
    There is no other on-reservation source of funds for GED completion.
        Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program.--The fiscal year 2000 request is
    $17.5 million and is a reduction of $611,000 over 1999. NIEA recommends
    that the JOM program be funded at $24 million. Since fiscal year 1995,
    the funding for JOM has decreased by nearly $7 million. The JOM program
    provides supplemental educational services for 272,000 American Indian
    students in 23 states. NIEA continues to support a per pupil
    expenditure of $200, a number also supported by the National Johnson
    O'Malley Association.
                Other Programs, School Operations--$503,568,000
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request for School Operations is $27.4
    million over 1999. The $503.5 million investment in students attending
    BIA schools provides for a variety of basic educational services from
    early childhood to transportation and administrative costs associated
    with educating primarily reservation-based schools. The BIA educates
    about 10 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native K-12
    population in the U.S. Below are the various education components
    within this category.
        Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula.--The President's
    fiscal year 2000 request is $319.9 million compared with the fiscal
    year 1999 actual of $306.2 million for this program. The increase of
    $13.7 million provides formula-based funding for 185 federally-operated
    and contracted schools serving 51,378 students. There are several types
    of schools funded with ISEP funds including BIA-operated, grant, and
    contract elementary and secondary schools. The fiscal year 2000 request
    reflects a 10 percent reduction in the student count from the prior
    year. While there was a decrease in student enrollment in school year
    1998-1999, the BIA expects an increase of 2.5 percent for school year
    1999-2000. The Weighted Student Unit (WSU) amount for school year 1998-
    1999 is $3,199. The estimate for 1999 is $3,238 and $3,285 in 2000.
    NIEA continues to support a funding level of $3,500 per WSU--a number
    we have proposed since fiscal year 1993. The proposed $3,285 per WSU is
    still far below the average per student expenditure by public
    elementary and secondary schools, an amount reported by the Department
    of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to be
    $7,317 per student in school year 1996-1997. In addition, enrollment
    for BIA schools has consistently grown from 39,911 in 1987 to 51,378 in
    1999. T3NIEA recommends $329 million for ISEP and $708,000 for ISEP
    Program Adjustments.
        Family and Child Education (FACE) Program.--The fiscal year 2000
    request is $5.5 million and is $83,000 more than 1999. The FACE program
    was first funded in 1992 and was designed to begin educating children
    at an earlier age through parental involvement at home and to
    coordinate FACE components. We request that the FACE program be funded
    at the fiscal year 1994 level of $7.5 million. Currently there are 22
    FACE sites, however the BIA could use a FACE program at each of its
    elementary schools if the program were sufficiently funded.
        Student Transportation.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $38.8
    million and is an increase of $4 million over 1999. In SY 1998-1999 the
    BIA-funded transportation cost is $2.10 per mile with over 14 million
    miles estimated to be driven. The latest national cost per mile was not
    available, however, in 1994, the national average was $2.92 per mile
    for public schools. Therefore, the BIA-funded schools, which are
    located primarily in rural, isolated areas, are at least $.82 below the
    national per mile average. For students in boarding schools,
    transportation funding is provided at the beginning and end of the
    school year and for one round trip home at mid-year. For students in
    day schools, daily transportation must be provided. NIEA recommends $41
    million for student transportation.
        Institutional Disabled.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $3.7
    million and is $7,000 less than 1999. Appropriations in fiscal year
    1999 provided for services to approximately 166 Indian children ages 5-
    21 in 47 different institutions. These students require 24-hour
    institutionalized care. NIEA recommends $4 million.
        Facilities Operations and Maintenance.--The fiscal year 2000
    request is $79.1 million and is $3.8 million less than 1999. The
    request will provide for $51.8 million for operations and $27.3 million
    for maintenance costs for all Bureau-funded schools. In fiscal year
    1999, the Bureau will provide essential services for educational
    facilities consisting of 2,337 buildings containing approximately 17.6
    million square feet. NIEA recommends $90 million.
        Administrative Cost Grants.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $47.7
    million and is $5.5 million over 1999. For school year 1999-2000, the
    BIA will have 129 contract/grant schools and 56 Bureau-operated
    schools. Administrative cost grants enable tribes and tribal
    organizations to operate contract or grant schools without reducing
    direct program services to Indian students. The Navajo Nation has
    approved the conversion of 10 additional schools during school year
    2000-2001, therefore more funds are needed to cover these conversion
    costs. NIEA recommends $50 million.
        Area Agency Technical Support.--The fiscal year 2000 request is
    $7.4 million and is $240,000 over 1999. This funding provides technical
    support and program supervision through 24 education line officers for
    185 Bureau-funded elementary and secondary programs, and the
    scholarship and adult education programs. NIEA recommends $8 million.
        Tribal Departments of Education (TED).--Although no funding is
    provided in the President's budget, NIEA recommends at least $3 million
    for tribal departments of education. We believe that sufficient funding
    should be provided to assist tribes in planning and developing their
    own centralized tribal administrative entities to accomplish their
    goals in accordance with school reform and accreditation needs. This
    would be appropriate given the recent trend to convert more schools
    from BIA to Tribal control. Funding for tribal education departments
    has been endorsed by NIEA's membership as well as by the National
    Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
                Tribally Controlled Community Colleges--$38,411,000
        Tribal Colleges/Post Secondary Schools.--The fiscal year 2000
    request is $37.3 million and is $7.1 million over the 1999 amount.
    Included in the request is $114,000 for technical assistance and
    $977,000 for Endowment Grants. NIEA supports the American Indian Higher
    Education Consortium funding recommendation of an additional $10
    million for tribal colleges.
                Special Programs and Pooled Overhead--$15,670,000
        Postsecondary Schools.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $14.3
    million and is $1.4 million over fiscal year 1999. NIEA recommends $16
    million for the postsecondary schools program. The two postsecondary
    schools funded under this section include Haskell Indian Nations
    University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI).
    Haskell will receive $8.6 million and SIPI will receive $5.7 million if
    the request is approved. NIEA recommends $10 million for Haskell and
    $6.5 million for SIPI since both schools have experienced large
    increases in enrollments. Both schools provide a variety of educational
    opportunities for Indian and Alaska Native students at the community
    college and university level to prepare them to enter four-year
    colleges and universities or to find employment. From 1997 to 1998,
    enrollment at both schools increased by 350. The fiscal year 2000
    projection shows a major increase of nearly 500 Indian students.
        Special Higher Education Scholarships.--The fiscal year 2000
    request is $1.3 million, level with 1999. This amount has remained the
    same since 1996 and is totally unacceptable to NIEA. NIEA recommends $5
    million. Since fiscal year 1995 funding for BIA graduate scholarships
    have been cut in half. The reduction occurred at the same time the
    Department of Education, Office of Indian Education lost funding for
    its $2.6 million fellowship program for Indian students which served an
    average of 150 students. The BIA program is the primary funding source
    for American and Alaska Native graduate students and is totally
    inadequate to help these individuals meet the costs of an advanced
    degree. The program, which is administered by the American Indian
    Graduate Center (AIGC) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been underfunded
    for at least the last 20 years. For school year 1997-1998, the actual
    unmet need was $5.7 million. During the 1996-1997 school year, the
    program funded an estimated 378 students with an average award of
    $3,955. Because of reduced funding, scholarship awards are being
    drastically reduced while the demand for these limited scholarship
    funds increase. This program funds students in 27 states with 128
    tribes represented. No other federal graduate level scholarship
    program, specifically for American Indian students, currently exists.
                Education Construction--$108,377,000
        Replacement School Construction.--The fiscal year 2000 request is
    $69.9 million and is $52.4 million over 1999. As part of the fiscal
    year 2000 request is $30 million as recommended by the President's
    School Bonding proposal. NIEA supports the completion of all
    construction for all schools on the priority ranking list. The fiscal
    year 2000 funds are designated for the Seba Dalkai School in Arizona
    and the Fond du Lac School in Wisconsin. The priority ranking list
    contains 16 schools. To date, seven schools have been completed and are
    now occupied. Ten of the sixteen schools have been funded though the
    construction phase. The Bureau estimates that approximately $111
    million would be needed to complete the remaining six schools on the
    replacement school construction list.
        New School Construction Priority List.--NIEA has become aware of a
    situation involving Shiprock Alternative School which is apparently not
    on the list to be funded in fiscal year 2000, even though it should be
    next in the priority ranking list. The priority ranking list determines
    the order that new schools are to be built and should provide the
    baseline for annual appropriation requests. Shiprock was assigned
    position number 12 out of 16 on the priority list. The schools
    designated to be funded in fiscal year 2000 are Seba Dalkai (# 9 on the
    list) and Fond du Lac Ojibway School (#13 on the list). If this is
    indeed the case, we request that additional funds be made available for
    Shiprock Alternative. Schools assigned #10 (Sac and Fox Settlement
    School in Iowa) and #11 (Pyramid Lake High School in Nevada) are
    scheduled to begin construction in 1999. Bypassing a school on the
    priority list for budgetary reasons sets a negative precedent as the
    BIA works to establish new guidelines for a future priority list. These
    guidelines are due out this fiscal year.
        Education Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).--The fiscal
    year 2000 request for Education Facilities Improvement and Repair is
    $36 million and is $4 million less than 1999. The FI&R program is
    focused towards eliminating critical health and safety hazards in
    Bureau education facilities. The estimated backlog of education repair
    needs, excluding quarters as of January, 1999, totals approximately
    $743 million. NIEA urges the Committee to consider additional, or
    supplemental funding, in order to clear up this situation. NIEA
    recommends $46.2 million.
        Indian School Construction Bonding.--The fiscal year 2000 request
    is $30 million and is included under the Bureau's Replacement School
    and is being proposed in the President's School Construction
    Modernization Initiative. The bonding initiative is designed to provide
    needy districts and Tribes with the authority to issue bonds to lenders
    who could claim a tax credit for the life of a bond in lieu of
    interest. It is estimated that the bonding authority could generate an
    estimated $75 million in construction authority. Past bonding
    initiatives have failed for various reasons and direct funding may be a
    better alternative for tribes and bureau schools since they are a
    federal responsibility equal to the better-funded Department of Defense
    schools. We feel that the proposal has some merit; however, an outright
    appropriation to fund the $740 million backlog is preferred.
                Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA).
        The fiscal year 2000 request is $4.25 million and is level funded
    with fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. NIEA supports the fiscal
    year 2000 request for IAIA plus an additional $2 million for
    construction needs. This institution has been in existence for 35 years
    and is the only facility solely dedicated to the arts for American
    Indians and Alaska Natives. The request would support the core
    operations of the institute by providing funding for instruction,
    student support services, administration costs, and for operations of
    the IAIA museum. NIEA supports an appropriation of $6.25 million for
    IAIA.
        IAIA has been compared to other institutions in terms of cost per
    students. IAIA does not have its own facilities and leases space from a
    separate college and from a tribally-contracted school. The cost for
    housing the IAIA on the campus represents 18 percent of the total
    institutional budget. IAIA also operates a museum which houses the
    National Collection of Contemporary American Indian and Alaska Native
    Art, a collection of 7,000 pieces. There are no funds requested in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget for construction costs at IAIA. NIEA asks the
    committee to support an additional $2 million for IAIA's construction
    needs for a new campus. In the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill,
    the IAIA was required to raise $500,000 in order to bring the
    appropriation of $3.75 million to $4.25 million. By mid-February 1999,
    IAIA had raised 80 percent ($395,000) of the $500,000 as requested by
    Congress. IAIA has made exceptional progress in obtaining private
    sector support and in 1990, a private donor in Sante Fe, New Mexico
    donated 140 acres of land that will be used for a future campus.

                                          BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FUNDING--FISCAL YEARS 1996-2000 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
                                                                    [Educaton Programs Only]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Fiscal year
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Feb. 1, 1999
                                                            President's               President's   NIEA 1999     1999 Final          2000        NIEA 2000
                                      1996         1997       request    Actual 1998    request    recommended  appropriations    President's    Recommended
                                                                1998                      1999                                      request
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
     tribal priority allocation:
        Scholarships............  $26,285,000  $26,481,000  $29,524,000  $29,495,000  $29,036,000  $29,036,000    $29,509,000      $28,590,000   $39,000,000
        Adult Education.........    2,374,000    2,486,000    2,287,000    2,663,000    2,699,000    4,000,000      2,633,000        2,605,000     4,000,000
        TCCCs Supplement........      951,000      986,000      951,000    1,024,000    1,047,000    1,047,000      1,047,000        1,081,000     1,081,000
        JOM.....................   19,634,000   18,177,000   17,216,000   18,534,000   18,080,000   24,000,000     18,080,000       17,469,000    24,000,000
        Other--Eduction Design..    1,261,000    1,301,000      955,000    1,504,000    1,406,000    1,406,000      1,406,000        1,361,000     1,361,000
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TPA Subtotal..........   50,505,000   49,431,000   50,933,000   53,220,000   52,268,000   59,489,000     52,675,000       51,106,000    69,442,000
                                 ===========================================================================================================================
    Other programs--school
     operations:
        ISEP (Formula)..........  262,833,000  285,739,000  296,272,000  293,703,000  308,518,000  329,000,000    306,230,000      319,890,000   329,000,000
        ISEP (Program                 150,000      150,000      154,000      154,000      708,000      708,000        656,000          663,000       708,000
         adjustment)............
        Early Childhood.........    5,471,000    5,471,000    5,471,000    5,471,000    5,513,000    6,500,000      5,503,000        5,586,000     7,500,000
        Student Transportation..   25,697,000   31,604,000   34,302,000   32,802,000   36,464,000   36,500,000     34,758,000       38,835,000    41,000,000
        Institutional Disabled..    3,432,000    3,732,000    3,737,000    3,737,000    3,741,000    3,741,000      3,740,000        3,747,000     4,000,000
        Facilities O&M..........   67,846,000   73,696,000   74,628,000   74,628,000   77,409,000   77,409,000     75,222,000       79,100,000    90,000,000
        [Facilities Operation     ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..............     [51,825,000]  ...........
         Detail] ...............
        [Facilities Maintenance   ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..............     [27,275,000]  ...........
         Detail] ...............
        Administrative Cost        36,560,000   42,160,000   44,710,000   42,160,000   46,690,000   48,290,000     42,160,000       47,690,000    50,000,000
         Grants.................
        Area/Agency T.S.........    6,897,000    6,966,000    7,032,000    7,032,000    7,142,000    7,142,000      7,117,000        7,357,000     8,000,000
        Tribal Departments of     ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    3,000,000  ..............  ...............    3,000,000
         Education..............
        Substance Abuse/Alcohol   ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..............         400,000       400,000
         Education..............
        School Statistics--ADP..  ...........      700,000      700,000      700,000      700,000      700,000        700,000          700,000       700,000
        Emergency Operations....      500,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...............  ...........
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Other program subtotal  409,386,000  450,218,000  467,006,000  460,387,000  486,885,000  512,990,000    476,086,000      503,968,000   534,308,000
                                 ===========================================================================================================================
    Tribally controlled
     community colleges:
        Operating Grants........   26,320,000   26,320,000   29,320,000   28,820,000   34,320,000   36,320,000     30,220,000       37,320,000    40,220,000
        Technical Assistance....      114,000      114,000      114,000      114,000      114,000      114,000        114,000          114,000       114,000
        Endowment Grants........      977,000      977,000      977,000      977,000      977,000      977,000        977,000          977,000       977,000
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TCCC Subtotal.........   27,411,000   27,411,000   30,411,000   29,911,000   35,411,000   37,411,000     31,311,000       38,411,000    41,311,000
                                 ===========================================================================================================================
    Special programs/pooled
     overhead--education:
        Postsecondary Schools...   11,732,000   12,383,000   12,682,000   12,682,000   12,921,000   16,200,000     12,921,000       14,333,000    16,000,000
        Special Higher Education    1,337,000    1,337,000    1,337,000    1,337,000    1,337,000    5,700,000      1,337,000        1,337,000     5,000,000
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Education Subtotal....   13,069,000   13,720,000   14,019,000   14,019,000   14,258,000   21,900,000     14,258,000       15,670,000    21,000,000
                                 ===========================================================================================================================
    Education Construction:
        Replacement School         18,500,000    4,000,000   14,000,000   19,200,000   37,400,000  116,788,000     17,400,000       39,859,000    39,859,000
         Construction...........
        Indian School             ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..............      30,000,000    30,000,000
         Construction Bonding ..
        Employee Housing........    3,000,000    3,000,000    3,000,000    3,000,000    3,000,000    3,000,000      3,000,000        2,507,000     3,000,000
        Facilities I&R..........   23,039,000   24,139,000   32,179,000   32,179,000   46,212,000   46,212,000     40,000,000       36,011,000    46,212,000
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Education Construction   44,539,000   31,139,000   49,179,000   54,379,000   86,612,000  166,000,000     60,400,000      108,377,000   119,071,000
           Subtotal.............
                                 ===========================================================================================================================
    Institute of American Indian    5,500,000    5,500,000  ...........    4,250,000    3,188,000    4,250,000      4,250,000        4,250,000     6,250,000
     Art........................
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          BIA Grand Total.......  550,410,000  577,419,000  611,548,000  616,166,000  678,622,000  802,040,000    638,980,000      721,782,000   791,382,000
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Department Offices
                                Insular Affairs
       Prepared Statement of Hon. Ismael John, Senator, Nitijela of the
      Marshall Islands; and Hon. Neptali Peter, Mayor, Enewetak Atoll on
            behalf of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee: Thank
    you for providing this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to
    describe issues relating to food production and the environmental
    situation on Enewetak Atoll.
        Mr. Chairman, at the outset we wish to thank you, this
    Subcommittee, and the Congress for the $410,000 appropriation for
    equipment and manpower which was in addition to the $1.191 million
    program funding requested by the administration for fiscal year 1999.
    We have been informed that this Subcommittee desires a report on how
    the $410,000 was spent. The $410,000 was used (1) to purchase two
    backhoes and two flat bed trucks, (2) to fund the repair of a vessel
    essential for the shipment to Enewetak of food, material and equipment
    and , (3) is being used to fund additional manpower. It must be noted
    that there was an unexpected delay in availability of funding for these
    and other portions of the program. We understand that this delay was
    due to the belated enactment of the Interior Appropriations Bill. As a
    result of the delay, funding for the purchase of equipment and for
    additional manpower was not available to us until approximately mid-
    December 1998. We purchased two Caterpillar backhoes from a dealer in
    Honolulu at the best price possible as soon as funding for such
    purchase was available to us. The Backhoes were shipped to Majuro,
    Marshall Islands in January 1999. All the equipment finally reached
    Enewetak in early March, 1999 and is now fully operational. Additional
    manpower has recently been employed to permit us to more quickly effect
    the rehabilitation of the soil, the continued planting of plants, and
    maintenance of same. A portion of the $410,000 was used to repair a
    vessel essential for food, material and equipment from Majuro to
    Enewetak. The repair of the vessel was critical to Enewetak for several
    reasons. First, the Enewetak motor sailer, the Wetak II, sank in May,
    1998. Second, the Marshall Islands national government drastically
    curtailed its shipping service to Enewetak. Consequently, we required a
    substitute vessel to provide for the shipment of food, material and
    equipment to Enewetak. We were fortunate to find a 104 foot twin screw
    vessel for sale by the University of Hawaii. We negotiated a good price
    for the vessel but it required repairs. The cost of the vessel was
    $100,000, and the repairs amounted to $250,000, for a total of
    $350,000. This is a good price for a vessel of this type. The vessel is
    now in outstanding condition, with much greater cargo and passenger
    capacity than the vessel it replaced. We financed a portion of the
    total cost of the vessel with insurance proceeds from the loss of the
    Wetak II. The insurance proceeds amounted to $180,000 leaving a balance
    of $170,000 for the vessel's repair. We requested that $170,000 of the
    $410,000 be made available for such repair costs. We explained the
    necessity of a vessel for our community and this program to the
    Department of Interior. We pointed out that the vessel is the lifeline
    which permits us to live on Enewetak. The Department of Interior
    acceded to our request and the vessel's repair has been completed this
    very week. The vessel will be in Majuro late this month in time for a
    necessary food and material shipment to Enewetak.
        Although we are very grateful for the $410,000 in addition to the
    $1.191 million for the core components of the program, we must point
    out that this type of additional funding is the type of funding
    required on an annual basis to permit the program to keep pace with
    inflation. For example, this program has essentially been level funded
    since 1986 at approximately $1.1 million. The purchasing power of the
    $1.1 million has been reduced to less than $700,000. Consequently, the
    program has taken a 35 percent cut in funding. A funding level of
    approximately $1.6 million would provide the same purchasing power as
    existed with respect to the $1.1 million provided in 1986.
        Another important issue to bear in mind is that our atoll continues
    to suffer the lingering ill effects of the 43 nuclear bombs exploded at
    Enewetak. All the land of Enewetak requires rehabilitation to support
    food bearing plants. Fifty percent of the land requires further
    radiological remediation. Enjebi needs to be resettled. In addition to
    such remediation, rehabilitation and resettlement, we need to be
    provided just and adequate compensation for the use of Enewetak by the
    United States. We have previously discussed these issues with members
    of this Subcommittee. In such discussions, we informed this
    Subcommittee that we were in the process of having scientists,
    engineers, agriculturalists, and appraisers determine the remediation,
    rehabilitation, resettlement, loss of use, and hardship costs. We
    expect all these items to be quantified this month and the experts'
    reports and testimonies to be presented to the Marshall Islands Nuclear
    Claims Tribunal. We will also present to you the findings of our
    experts. We believe that this Subcommittee shares our desire to provide
    adequate funding to finally resolve these outstanding issues and permit
    us to live our lives on Enewetak as God intended. Until such funding is
    provided, we request that funding for the present program continue. As
    we have stated many times, without the food, transportation, fuel,
    agricultural rehabilitation and maintenance that is funded by this
    program, we would not be able to live on Enewetak.
        We would now like to describe the program and its components, and
    the efforts we have made to make this program as effective as possible.
                     enewetak food and agriculture program
        The Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program enables us to live on
    Enewetak. It provides funding for imported food, continued agriculture
    rehabilitation, operation of a motor vessel which brings us the
    imported food, a nutrition education program, and an operation and
    maintenance component conducted out of a facility on Enewetak known as
    the field station.
        1. Efforts made to increase food production.--As we previously
    explained to this committee, we were unhappy with the state of the
    agriculture rehabilitation program when we inherited the program from
    the Department of Energy. Accordingly, in 1993 we had an assessment of
    our agriculture situation conducted. The purpose of such assessment was
    to determine the then current agriculture situation and to develop
    recommendations for increased food production. The recommendations
    included the hiring of a part time on-site agriculture consultant. The
    agriculture consultant began his work in 1993 and modified the
    recommendations somewhat. The most significant aspects of the
    agriculture rehabilitation program are the infusion of nutrients into
    the soil and the planting of buffer plants along the island's shore to
    protect the interior plants from salt spray. The infusion of nutrients
    into the soil is accomplished by digging trenches and placing organic
    material in the trenches along with a compost mixture of copra cake and
    chicken manure. This activity is extremely labor intensive and required
    the importation of copra cake and chicken manure. Although the work is
    progressing, additional funding is required to provide greater manpower
    and the necessary equipment, materials and supplies.
        2. Importation of food.--Imported food is required because of the
    poor soil condition of the land available to us and the radiation
    contamination of other lands. Since we have taken over the program we
    have increased the quantity of imported food by 35 percent without any
    increase in the overall program budget. We have accomplished this by
    utilizing bidding procedures for food purchases; elimination of
    transportation charges by use of our vessel; elimination of import tax
    on food; and reduction of other program expenses.
        3. Nutrition education program.--Since our people cannot rely on
    traditional foods we must import food, the nutritional value of which
    is unfamiliar to us. Several years ago we became aware that some of our
    people, particularly our children, suffered from malnutrition.
    Accordingly, we instituted a nutrition education program. We are
    pleased to report that we have been apprised by physicians that
    malnutrition among our children has been greatly reduced.
        4. Vessel.--The Wetak II , a fifty foot motor sailer, was used to
    primarily transport our imported food purchases and agriculture
    material from the region to Enewetak. Food and agriculture material was
    transported from Majuro, a distance of 600 miles from Enewetak.
    Unfortunately, the Wetak II sank in May, 1998. As described above, we
    have purchased, repaired, and refitted a replacement vessel. This
    vessel will provide us with much greater cargo and passenger capacity.
    The vessel is now in excellent condition and will provide the necessary
    lifeline for goods and materials for our community.
        5. Field Station.--Operation and maintenance of the entire program
    is conducted out of a facility referred to as the Field Station. The
    machinery and equipment required by the agriculture, food and
    transportation components of the program are kept at the Field Station.
    Field Station personnel provide all the required agricultural work;
    maintain, service, and operate the equipment required by the various
    components of the program; make payments and maintain books of
    accounts; and coordinate the procurement of food, material and
    equipment. The overall manager of the program is Johnson Hernest. Other
    management personnel include Samson Yoshitaro and Mathan David. The
    program employs 40 members of our community.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, we thank the Congress for its past funding of the
    Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program and request that it provide
    funding for fiscal year 2000 in the amount of $1.6 million to offset
    the effects that inflation has had on the program these past 13 years.
    In addition, we look forward to discussing with the Congress the
    funding required to finally complete the remediation, rehabilitation,
    resettlement of Enewetak and to provide us the just and full
    compensation to which we are entitled for the damages we sustained as a
    result of the United States Nuclear Testing Program.
                                     ______

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                                 Forest Service
      Prepared Statement of Steve Holmer, Campaign Coordinator, American
                                 Lands Alliance
      forest appropriations initiative (fy 2000) a budget to protect and
                          restore the national forests
        Current Forest Service budget priorities are harming both the
    environment and the economy by emphasizing logging at the expense of
    activities that are needed to restore the environment and that provide
    greater economic returns. Clean water, fish and wildlife, and tourism
    on the National Forests all provide more jobs and economic value than
    logging. Yet, over one-third of the agency's budget is spent on
    logging, and only 11 percent of the budget is spent on recreation, fish
    and wildlife and watershed improvements combined.
        The Forest Appropriations Initiative proposes to redirect 10
    percent of the Forest Service budget away from environmentally harmful
    activities to fund restoration and land acquisition programs that have
    a higher overall benefit to society. Here is a brief summary of the
    Initiative:
                       logging and timber sale subsidies
        Congress should prohibit logging in old growth, roadless areas, and
    steep or unstable slopes. We support reducing the commercial timber
    sale subsidy by eliminating fiends in the timber sales management line-
    item. The National Forest timber program is causing unacceptable
    environmental and economic harm. Old-growth, roadless areas, and
    critical riparian habitat for endangered salmon stocks are all still
    being clearcut on the National Forests. The timber program costs
    taxpayers anywhere from $300 million to $1.2 billion dollars each year
    depending on what economic analysis is used and none of these estimates
    include the cost of fixture restoration or road maintenance.
    Eliminating the Timber Sales Management line-item (which fiends less
    than \1/5\ of the total timber program) would save an estimated $196
    million.
                          roads and road construction
        We oppose all Finding for new roads. We oppose all Finding for road
    reconstruction until the agency completes long-term roads policy. We
    support $50 million for more road maintenance and obliteration. Limited
    road construction would be permitted to allow decommissioning of other
    roads and road reconstruction would be allowed to prevent imminent
    environmental harm.
        According to the Forest Service, only 18 percent of the road system
    is currently being maintained each year and tens of thousands of miles
    of road need to be decommissioned. The estimated cost for maintaining
    the National Forest road system is $568 million each year. Eliminating
    new construction and reconstruction would save an estimated $90
    million.
                       off-budget funds & county payments
        Congress should eliminate all off-budget funds to end the current
    incentive to log and to help restore agency accountability. County
    payments should also be decoupled to end the incentive for counties and
    schools to support excessive logging levels.
                                   recreation
        We support a moratorium on new construction projects until the
    existing infrastructure maintenance backlog has been addressed.
    Proposes to eliminate the recreation fee-demonstration project. The
    Sierra Club, American Lands and over 75 other environmental groups
    oppose the imposition of recreation access and user fees on public
    lands for several reasons: opposition to payment of fees for use of
    public lands for which the public already pays taxes; the recreation
    fee demonstration program is the leading edge of the recreation
    industry's attempts to transform public land recreation into commercial
    enterprises; and the program creates an inappropriate incentive to
    build new facilities to generate more receipts for the agency.
                         fire ecology and forest health
        We propose to reallocate funds within the wildfire management
    program to increase funding for research, planning and manual
    treatments. We strongly oppose restoration and fuels reduction projects
    as part of a commercial timber sale. We oppose earmarked funding for
    the Quincy Library Group plan. We propose numerous prescriptions on how
    to improve and restore accountability to the fire suppression program.
                          stewardship and restoration
        We oppose the stewardship contracting language is this year's
    spending bill and the idea of trading National Forest trees for
    services. Congress should reject restoration projects as part of a
    commercial timber sale. We support non-commercial stewardship pilot
    projects using appropriated funds.
                       funding increases for restoration
        More funds are urgently needed to acquire threatened habitats, to
    maintain and decommission roads, and to provide the needed economic
    transition assistance for rural communities. The Appropriations
    Initiative calls for $398 million in additional spending.
                                invasive species
        We support a $25 million increase above last year's level. We
    propose numerous prescriptions to improve the program.
                                law enforcement
        We propose $3 million for a Timber Theft Cadre to investigate
    timber theft.
                            monitoring and inventory
        We propose a $30 million increase for monitoring along with a
    requirement that no project may be undertaken without adequate Finds
    for monitoring. We also support the Forest Service completing their
    inventory of eastern old growth.
                           fish and wildlife programs
        We endorse a $105 million increase for habitat protection and
    research.
                             watershed improvements
        We support a $20 million increase but opposes spending watershed
    improvements funds for timber sale management.
                           state and private forestry
        The Initiative proposes a $55 million increase for the Forest
    Legacy, Urban Forestry and Economic Assistance programs that help
    transition communities away from timber dependency.
                                land acquisition
        We support a $100 million increase for land acquisition.
              a budget to protect and restore the national forests
        We are proposing to cut $286 million from the road construction/
    reconstruction and timber sales management line-items and we are
    proposing $398 million in increased spending for restoration and land.
    acquisition programs. This represents a shin of approximately 10
    percent of the agency's over-all budget that will benefit both the
    environmental and the economy.

                                   PROPOSED CUTS IN THE FOREST SERVICE FY 2000 BUDGET
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Proposed
                                                                          FY 2000      Omnibus bill    decrease from
                                Line item                                 request         FY 1999         FY 2000
                                                                                                          request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Timber Sales Management.........................................        $196,800        $226,900        $196,800
    Road Construction & Reconstruction..............................          96,400          98,000          90 000
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................  ..............  ..............         286,800
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   PROPOSED INCREASES TO FOREST SERVICE FY 2000 BUDGET
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Proposed
                                                                          FY 2000      Omnibus bill    increase from
                                Line item                                 request         FY 1999         FY 2000
                                                                                                          request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Law Enforcement.................................................         $66,000         $66,000          $3,000
    Wildlife Habitat Management.....................................          37,000          32,000          20,000
    Inland Fish Habitat Management..................................          26,000          19,000          40,000
    Anadromous Fish Habitat Management..............................          29,000          22,700          20,000
    TES Species--Research...........................................          53,100          42,200          10,000
    TES Species--Habitat Management.................................          31,500          26,500          15,000
    Road Maintenance & Decommissioning..............................         122,000          99,800          50,000
    Grazing Management..............................................          28,500          28,500          10,000
    Monitoring & Inventory..........................................          88,000          80,000          30,000
    Rangeland Vegmation Management..................................          36,500          28,500           9,000
    Research: Insects, Diseases & Exotic Species....................          25,000          19,600          11,000
    Forest Health Management (Invasives)............................          40,300          37,300           5,000
    Urban Forestry..................................................          39,500          30,500          10,000
    Forest Legacy...................................................          50,000           7,000          30,000
    Economic Action Programs........................................          16,300          17,300           5,000
    PNW Assistance..................................................           7,000           9,000          10,000
    Land Acquisition................................................         119,200         119,100         100,000
    Watershed Improvements..........................................          40,100          30,100          20,000
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................  ..............  ..............         398,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Craig Axfod, Program Director, Utah Environmental
                                    Congress
        The Following represents the written testimony of the Utah
    Environmental Congress (UEC) regarding appropriations for the Forest
    Service in the coming fiscal year. We appreciate your committee's
    willingness to accept written testimony at its April 13 hearing on this
    matter.
        The Forest Service is charged with mortaring 192 million acres of
    U.S. forest. These forests range from tropical rainforests in Puerto
    Rico to the more arid forests of the southwest. The UEC recognizes it
    is open a difficult challenge to manage such diverse habitats
    stretching from one end of the continent to the other. The UEC also
    believes having these forests under federal management is an
    opportunity.
        Traditionally America's national forests have been managed largely
    with the extractive industries in mind, particularly the timber
    industry. Billions of dollars have been spent and lost managing a
    timber program that amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare.
    Timber has been sold at below cost, and the taxpayer has picked up the
    tab for roads built solely for the purpose of taking timber out of the
    forest. In the long run the taxpayer also must pay for the maintenance
    or obliteration of these roads as well.
        Excessive logging and road construction has also fragmented or
    destroyed critical habitat for a variety of species. The Forest
    Service's 1995 report, criticized by the GAO in a later audit, stated
    that there were approximately 378,000 miles of roads crisscrossing
    America's national forests. Most, if not all of these roads, are
    contributing to the sediment-a/ion of many of the more than 200,000
    miles of fishable streams managed by the Forest Service. These roads
    have also been identified as a major contributing factor for massive
    landslides in the Pacific Northwest.
        The result of habitat loss and erosion caused by logging and the
    associated road construction is a loss of diversity that leads to the
    listing of species that otherwise might have thrived in a healthy
    forest. In addition, sedimentation hurts native fish populations and
    the fishing industry as streams become too warm or to muddy to smart
    native fish, and as sediment becomes deposited in the bottom of popular
    lakes. Mudslides often can cause damage to maintained state and local
    roads and bridges, as well as private property. The costs of these
    problems are not factored into the profit and loss statements provided
    to you by the Forest Service or the GAO, and they are tremendous;
        I stated earlier that the UEC believes having 192 million acres of
    forest under federal management is an opportunity. In spite of the past
    mismanagement described above, we do believe this to be so. It is an
    opportunity for our government to preserve for future generations the
    natural beauty and diversity on forests have to offer. These forests
    are the headwaters for our municipal and agricultural water supplies.
    They are the places where our families go to camp, hold reunion, or
    just spend a day hiking together. They are living laboratories where
    students of all ages can go to learn more about the natural world, and
    they are places with unique inherent qualities that should be protected
    just because they are.
        These Publicly owned forests are more valuable spiritually,
    aesthetically, biologically, and financially in their natural state,
    then they are as resources for extractive industries to exploit. While
    most of these benefits affect our quality of life in intangible ways,
    the financial benefit of managing forests for something other than
    timber, grazing, or mining is very clear. The Forest Service itself
    admits ``Outdoor recreation provides the largest contribution to
    national economic activity of any national forest program.'' (Report of
    the Forest Service, fiscal year 1997). Revenues to the treasury alone
    generated by recreation came to $45.2 million in fiscal year 1997. That
    is excluding income tax revenue generated by people employed by the
    recreation industry, an industry that directly benefits from the
    preservation of pristine forests and other wildlands. It has been
    estimated by the Forest Service that by the year 2000 recreation,
    hunting, and fishing in our national forests will contribute 38 times
    more income and create 31 times more jobs than logging within our
    national forests will.
        In light of the facts discussed above, the UEC calls on Congress to
    eliminate the government's timber sale program. This would save
    taxpayers more than $300 million a year. The funding could be
    redirected into retraining programs for workers in the timber industry,
    endangered species monitoring and protection, watershed protection, and
    road maintenance or obliteration programs. All funding for additional
    road construction should cease. The Forest Service has a multi-billion
    dollar backlog of roads in desperate need of maintenance. In recent
    testimony the Forest Service admitted only 18 percent of existing roads
    are being maintained to Forest Service standards. Why continue funding
    more road construction when there are not enough resources to maintain
    existing roads?
        The UEC has been told repeatedly that money is unavailable for
    adequate monitoring and law enforcement on the national forests. Money
    must be redirected into these aspects of the forest management program.
    The Forest Service is required under the National Forest Management Act
    to monitor the impacts of actions they carry out or approve. By
    redirecting some timber program and road construction funds into
    monitoring, there would be no excuse for not doing the monitoring
    required by law. Both the forests and the public would benefit by
    having solid scientific information available before management
    decisions are made. This weld have the added benefit of reducing
    administrative appeals and litigation.
        By funneling additional money into law enforcement programs costly
    impacts caused by illegal off-road vehicle use could be significantly
    reduced. In my state of Utah alone there are more than 11,000 miles of
    road within our six national forests. Public access to the backcountry
    is simply not an issue when so many miles of road are available.
    Illegal off road vehicle use contributes to erosion, destroys plant
    life, fragments wildlife habitat, and damages riparian areas. All of
    this damage ultimately must be paid for by the taxpayer who must bear
    the burden resulting watershed improvement projects and endangered
    plant recovery plans.
        I hope the committee will take the above mentioned concerns into
    consideration during its deliberations on the Forest Service's budget
    for fiscal year 2000. I ask that these comments be included in the
    official record.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Michael T. Goergen, Jr., Director, Forest Policy,
                         Society of American Foresters
        Mr. Chairman, I am Michael Goergen, the Director of Forest Policy
    for the Society of American Foresters (SAF). The more than 18,000
    members of the Society constitute the scientific and educational
    association representing the profession of forestry in the United
    States. SAF's primary objective is to advance the science, technology,
    education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of
    society. We are ethically bound to advocate and practice land
    management consistent with ecologically sound principles. I am
    especially pleased to be here today to comment on the fiscal year 2000
    budget for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. I wish to
    thank the subcommittee for its continued support of professional
    forestry, and its continued support of our priorities. I thank the
    Chair for the opportunity to testify on these important issues.
        The public policy activities of SAF are grounded in scientific
    knowledge and professional judgment. From this perspective we review
    proposed budgets for forestry and related natural resource programs to
    determine their adequacy to meet stated objectives and public needs.
                            the usda forest service
    Forest inventory and analysis
        The current Forest Inventory and Analysis program provides
    accurate, comparable data across all forestlands in the United States.
    Local governments, journalists, environmental groups and private
    citizens, in addition to forestry professionals in every employer
    category, need and use this information. Understanding the condition of
    the nation's forests is critical for appropriate planning and
    sustainable management. We believe the subcommittee has recognized the
    importance of this program in the past, and will continue to do so in
    the future. The new draft strategic plan, created in response to
    Section 253(c) of that act and recommendations of the Second Blue
    Ribbon Panel, exemplifies the program's commitment to adapt for the
    changing needs of the forestry profession and the larger public
    interested in the forests of this nation. The draft plan we viewed
    integrates the Forest Inventory and Analysis program with the Forest
    Health Monitoring program. It reduces the current inventory cycle and
    explores ways to make the program more efficient. We look forward to
    the distribution of this plan in its final form.
        In reviewing the Administration's fiscal year 2000 proposed FIA
    budget, we are concerned that the 1998 legislative mandate for an
    annualized inventory program with timely reporting will not become
    reality. Especially when the Administration states in its fiscal year
    2000 Budget Justification that ``the inventory cycle will remain at an
    average level of 11 years.'' The proposed FIA budget of $25.8 million
    is 11 percent of the Forest Service's Research Budget and 0.9 percent
    of the agency's total proposed budget. To comply with the 1998 Farm
    Bill Research Title for FIA and to implement prioritized elements of
    the strategic plan, Congress must increase the FIA funding level and
    the Administration must place greater priority on the FIA program. To
    insure that the FIA Program obtains funding commensurate with its
    responsibility to conduct an inventory of our nation's forests, we
    recommend a separate line item in the Forest Service's budget for FIA.
        Although SAF has not seen the final dollar amount requested by the
    FIA program to implement the goals of this draft strategic plan, we
    realize that moving toward the new annualized inventories and
    increasing the range of data collected will create new expenses for
    this important program. In order to support these endeavors, we
    encourage the subcommittee to continue to support increased funding for
    this program. In addition to funding for the overall program we would
    like to see a separate line item in the National Forest System (NFS)
    budget to enable the collection of FIA data on the NFS. While Congress
    has given the NFS funds to implement the FIA program on its lands
    before, the Forest Service has not always been able to collect this
    data. The NFS has many priority issues to deal with. We are all aware
    of their need to address backlog after backlog, and the accountability
    issues from which the agency suffers are no stranger to this committee.
    FIA is a priority as well, and data from the NFS must be collected. We
    hope that by establishing a separate line item, and including
    appropriate report language, Congress will give the agency the
    opportunity to adequately fund its share of the FIA program, and
    address the priority ecological issues it must to ensure these forests
    for the next generation.
    Addressing the ecological infrastructure backlog
        Much has been said about the backlog issues associated with the
    national forests. Whether it is forest health, deteriorating forest
    roads, endangered species, salmon habitat, recreation facilities,
    hazardous fuels, or any number of other issues, it is clear that the
    national forests desperately need attention. The Forest Service must
    address its ecological infrastructure backlog. Ecological
    infrastructures are those mechanisms that allow forest and other
    natural systems to function properly. Any one component of a system
    that is not functioning properly has the potential to impact other
    parts of the system. This is not always the case, but clearly there are
    examples in the national forests. Humans manipulate these processes
    sometimes acting as an equalizer, sometimes doing more damage. The key
    is allowing professional natural resource managers to put the
    infrastructure back in place.
        The Agency is attempting to deal with all these ecological
    infrastructure needs. They have mapped areas of forest health risk
    across the nation. They are addressing a very serious problem with the
    National Forest System road network. They are addressing wildland/urban
    interface issues. The most frustrating thing about all of these efforts
    is the estimated costs associated with addressing them. The Forest
    Service believes it will cost $8.6 billion to address the road backlog
    it faces. The Congressional Research Service believes it will cost $3.9
    billion to completely address the hazardous fuels buildup on the
    National Forest System. These figures do not include other ecological
    infrastructure issues that plague the National Forest System, such as
    the costs associated with restoring salmon habitat, enhancement of
    endangered species habitat, or a host of other problems. While these
    figures are astronomical and beyond what Congress can realistically
    fund, the Forest Service will receive money to address some of these
    problems and one problem should not be favored over the other by the
    Congress or the Administration. Forest Service managers know where the
    most critical problems are, they know how to address them, and they
    have the wherewithal to get the job done. The Forest Service should
    continue to develop plans and tools like the forest health risk maps,
    which Congress can study and consider. We believe this helps Congress,
    in their oversight role, fund backlogged work with confidence that the
    work will be completed. The Forest Service needs a reliable multi-year
    source of funding to address these issues, and the ability to set the
    priorities at the local level. The Agency also needs adequate and
    appropriate staff to carry out these activities.
        With that said, we feel the need to address the fiscal
    accountability challenges the Forest Service faces. This subcommittee
    is well aware of these challenges, as is the Forest Service. The SAF
    believes Congress, the Forest Service, and the Administration have
    tried to address these issues openly and with a commitment to solve the
    problem. There is frustration from everyone, including the SAF, that
    progress has not been faster. Many believe that the Forest Service
    should not be rewarded with increased appropriations when their
    perceived performance on this matter is less than satisfactory. While
    we understand that philosophy, our primary concern is for the health of
    the land. We hope that Congress, the Forest Service, and the
    Administration can find mechanisms that increase accountability and
    increase the health of the land.
    Keeping a managed forest landscape
        It is important that the Forest Service and the federal government
    not waiver on their commitment to state and local forestry agencies and
    the 10 million private nonindustrial forestland owners of this nation.
    The Forest Service has a unique partnership with the state forestry
    organizations, a partnership which has the opportunity to improve the
    health of our nation's forests through technical assistance, inventory
    and monitoring, and protection from fires, insects, and disease on the
    490 million acres of non-federal forests. Due to limited funding, the
    State and Private Forestry programs have yet to fully meet their
    potential, however SAF supports these programs and hopes Congress will
    as well.
        We are concerned about the status of private forestland in this
    nation. State, county, private, and industrial lands are increasingly
    producing forest-related goods and services. The most dramatic change
    on these lands is the shift in production of timber. Approximately 94
    percent of all timber produced in the US is produced on non-federal
    lands. The volume of timber from national forests has decreased
    dramatically, from 12.7 billion board feet (bbf) to 3.4 bbf, over the
    past 12 years. Such reductions shift the burden of producing wood fiber
    to state and private lands in order to meet the nation's increasing
    demand for forest products. The federal government has some
    responsibility to protect and enhance the sustainable flow of forest
    products from state and private lands precisely because of the
    substantial decrease in production on Forest Service lands.
        We are seeing examples of increasing urban sprawl, forest
    fragmentation, and large managed private forests sold as smaller
    parcels to individual owners. As a nation we have decided that forests,
    both public and private, are important for economic, environmental,
    human health, and spiritual reasons. We express the importance and
    value of our forest resources through a variety of mechanisms,
    including legislation. Many federal statutes, including the Endangered
    Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and others, have a
    regulatory impact on the management of private lands. Other statutes,
    the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and the 1990 Farm Bill
    Forestry Title, for example, take a cooperative, incentive based
    approach to nonfederal forests. These acts recognize the need for
    state, federal, and local cooperation to achieve resource benefits
    across the landscape, and they use a nonregulatory, incentivebased
    approach to achieve them. This cooperative approach is vital on issues
    that cross ownership boundaries, such as watersheds, forest insects and
    disease, and particularly wildfire.
        Adequate funding is essential if the program is to reach
    nonindustrial private landowners, only about 10 percent of whom have
    written management plans for their land. Even worse, the majority of
    timber sales on private lands go forward without the benefit of
    professional forestry advice. While this may seem like merely a problem
    of poor business practices, we in the forestry profession view it as a
    serious threat to the long-term sustainability of the nation's forest
    resources. Private land has public value. That is why we actively
    support programs that increase the amount of forestry advice available
    to nonindustrial private forest landowners. In addition to private
    sector consulting and industry efforts, extension programs, and other
    mechanisms, we believe the State and Private forestry programs can help
    both public and private sector foresters meet these challenges.
        We also strongly support funding for the Cooperative Fire
    Protection Programs. Wildfire does not respect political boundaries and
    the State Fire Assistance program allows for federal and state agencies
    to have a coordinated wildfire response. The program also helps state
    agencies comply with national safety and training standards which
    allows state crews to be deployed on federal fires and other disaster
    situations. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program is another strong
    cost share program that helps rural firefighters secure the latest
    training and equipment. Rural communities fight forest fires, and do
    not often have the resources to do so. This is particularly true as we
    see further development of wildland/urban interface fire issues.
    Cooperative Fire Protection Programs are critical to both forest health
    and the safety of our communities. We ask the subcommittee to consider
    strong funding levels for these programs.
    Other research programs
        There has been a general clamor for increased funding for forestry
    research since the publication of the 1990 RPA program report, which
    identified improving scientific knowledge about natural resources as a
    high priority. The National Research Council's (NRC) 1990 report,
    Forestry Research: A Mandate for Change, found the knowledge required
    for sound forest management policies inadequate. The 1997 NRC report
    entitled Forested Landscapes in Perspective, which focused on the needs
    of nonindustrial private landowners, continued to report that
    information needs were not being met. SAF is concerned about the
    relatively stagnant research budget of the last few years, but was
    encouraged by recent modest increases, and we thank the committee for
    that support. These appropriations, however, represent a significant
    decline in constant dollars and have lead to the unavoidable loss of
    not only administrators but scientists with significant expertise in
    highly specialized areas.
        Natural resource management issues are more complex today than they
    ever have been in the past. To find solutions we need interdisciplinary
    research in the biological, physical, and social sciences. The Agency
    has done a good job, and could do more, to reduce overhead and put more
    research dollars to work in direct research projects. But if we
    continue to lose scientists and research dollars, we believe complex
    issues are unlikely to be resolved, and the future of the Forest
    Service research program will be in jeopardy. With recognition of this
    disturbing trend, we encourage the committee to increase the
    appropriation for Forest Service Research over fiscal year 1999 levels.
                         the bureau of land management
        The fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agency Appropriation Act
    (Public Law 10583) included language that expanded the use of the
    Bureau of Land Management's Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund
    (FEHRF). This was a welcome change and we thank the Committee for
    developing this change in authority. This legislation allows for
    broader forest ecosystem health and recovery activities as well as
    monitoring. The expanded authority for the FEHRF, combined with
    increased funding for prescribed burning, will provide BLM managers
    with the tools to improve forest and wildlife habitat on BLM lands.
        In spite of the funding available under the FEHRF to implement
    ecosystem health projects, the BLM lacks the ontheground personnel,
    within the Public Domain, necessary to plan and implement these
    important activities. Since 1981, the BLM Forestry Management program
    has experienced an inflation-adjusted 65 percent budget decrease,
    whereas the entire Management of Lands and Resources budget has
    experienced only a 10 percent decrease over the same time period. We
    believe the BLM needs to increase its forest management expertise in
    order to take full advantage of the FEHRF and effectively shift to a
    focus on forest restoration. Therefore we support an increase in
    funding for additional forestry personnel to plan and administer forest
    health improvement activities under the BLM Forestry Management
    program.
                     stewardship contracting pilot projects
        I would also like to thank this committee for its role in
    developing language in last year's appropriations bill that allowed the
    Forest Service to develop stewardship contracting pilot projects.
    Innovation is important in natural resources management. These pilot
    projects will give us an opportunity to learn how to accomplish forest
    management objectives in concert with community objectives, hopefully
    at a reasonable cost. This committee continues to show leadership in
    forest management and we hope SAF can continue to be a partner in that
    leadership.
                                    closing
        In conclusion, we strongly support the BLM Forestry Management
    program and the Forest Service research, forest inventory and analysis,
    state and private, international, and road appropriations we've
    highlighted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to share our
    views with you and the subcommittee today.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Faith T. Campbell, Ph.D., Washington
             Representative, on behalf of Frontera Audubon Society
        Frontera Audubon Society requests a total of $5 million from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 1999 for
    purchase of lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Lower
    Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge protects
    incomparable biological values. The Lower Rio Grande Valley--an area as
    big as Delaware--is home to the greatest biodiversity for any similar-
    sized area of the country. The 465 bird species that reside in or
    migrate through the Valley constitute half of all bird species found in
    the United States. Sixty of the bird species live in no other part of
    the country. More than 200 species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians,
    and fish also live in the Valley, as do 300 species of butterflies, and
    1,200 species of plants.
        Because less than 5 percent of the valley now is in natural
    vegetation, this biological treasurehouse is in danger. Twenty-one
    species are federally listed as endangered or threatened; an additional
    35 are considered to be imperilled in Texas. More than 100 of the bird
    species are listed by the Texas Partners in Flight program as ``species
    of special interest''.
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is the key to ensuring survival of
    the region's biodiversity--and the economic and other benefits people
    enjoy as a result.
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR protects vitally important habitat
    remnants in 11 distinct biotic communities. Furthermore, the specific
    segments included in the Refuge are chosen to provide a corridor for
    the wildlife to use in moving among habitat remnants.
        When complete, the 132,500 Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR will
    constitute more than half of a planned 250,000 acre wildlife protection
    network that will include lands managed by state, county, and private
    conservation organizations as well as the Laguna Atascosa NWR. The
    planned complex will protect a modest 8 percent of the area of the four
    counties involved: Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy.
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is so important to protecting the
    Nation's biological diversity that it always ranks among the top 10 on
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's land acquisition priority list.
    This year, it ranks third.
        Despite the Refuge's importance, land acquisition has lagged in
    recent years due to low funding levels; only a few thousand acres could
    be purchased each year. Thus, as the Refuge approached its 20th
    anniversary since its creation, about one-third of the authorized lands
    and waters had not yet been purchased.
        As a result of the special land-acquisition appropriation (Title V
    of the fiscal year 1999 Land and Water Conservation Fund), heartening
    progress is being made this year. The Refuge has a total of $7.4
    million on hand for land acquisition--a mere $2 million through the
    regular appropriations process and $5.4 million through the special
    Title V. These funds should allow acquisition of something over 6,000
    acres (the need to buy increaasingly expensive water rights has
    somewhat reduced the amount of land that can be acquired with the
    available funds).
        Furthermore, the Refuge utilized duck stamp funds to purchase
    12,000 acres north of the Brownsville ship channel. This last parcel
    will probably be transferred to the nearby Laguna Atascosa NWR.
        If we exclude the parcel to be transferred, by the end of fiscal
    year 1999, the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR should have acquired about
    84,000 acres.
        It is important that the Congress maintain the momentum from fiscal
    year 1999. Many of the two dozen landowners who have expressed interest
    in selling high-priority tracts to the Refuge have waited years for
    responses to their offers.
        Completing the Refuge is an urgent task. The lower Rio Grande
    valley is experiencing rapid economic growth stimulated by the North
    American Free Trade Agreement and winter ``snowbird'' tourism. Last
    year, it was reported that two out of ten metropolitan areas that are
    undergoing the most rapid growth in the entire nation are found in the
    lower Rio Grande valley--McAllen-Edinburg-Mission and Brownsville-
    Harlingen-San Benito. This growth has two impacts. First, while
    agricultural land can be restored as wildlife habitat after purchase,
    land converted to housing, warehouses, or similar uses is no longer of
    potential value to the Refuge. Second, the rapid growth is raising the
    demand for water; the cost of water rights have doubled in just three
    years. The result is increased overall costs of land acquisition for
    the Refuge.
        At the same time, many farmers are leaving the occupation--and some
    of them wish to see their lands included in the Refuge. Allowing the
    Refuge to move rapidly on these offers will serve both biological
    conservation and the human needs of the Valley.
        Expansion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR will benefit the
    region's economy as well as its biological diversity.
        Tourism is the third largest industry in Texas. This $25.4 billion
    business provides 446,000 jobs, $1 billion in state taxes, and $739
    million in local taxes. Nature tourism is the fastest-growing segment
    of the industry, and Texas is a prime beneficiary of this trend because
    the state is the number one birding destination in the United States.
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley is one of three ``birding hotspots'' in
    Texas. Nearly 100,000 birders visit the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR
    each year. They spend $34.5 million and add $14.4 million to the local
    economy of McAllen. Harlingen's 1996 Rio Grande Valley Birding Festival
    generated $1.6 million in economic impact. At present, birders
    concentrate at the Santa Ana NWR--an older part of the Refuge located
    near Mission and Hidalgo. As other portions of the Lower Rio Grande
    Valley NWR are developed, more birders will be attracted to the
    additional opportunities, greater diversity of habitats, and less
    crowded conditions. The economic benefits will also be distributed more
    widely among towns in the Valley.
        Completion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is supported by the
    Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Texas Nature Conservancy, a
    chapter of the American Butterfly Association, Lower Laguna Madre
    Foundation, Native Plant Project, numerous botanical organizations and
    garden clubs, and Frontera Audubon Society. The Valley Chamber of
    Commerce and Chambers of Commerce of Brownsville, Harlingen, and
    McAllen recognize the importance of nature tourism, especially birders,
    to the Valley's economy and sponsor birding, butterfly, and other
    festivals. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has purchased 5,500
    acres as part of the larger network of reserves. TPWD also supports
    birding competitions, such as the Texas Coastal Birding Classic and the
    Texas Coastal Birding Trail.
                                     ______

      Prepare Statement of Justin R. Ward, Senior Policy Specialist, the
                       Natural Resources Defense Council
        The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) urges Congress to
    approve $50 million in fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the Forest
    Legacy Program.\1\ Consistent with our deep commitment to land and
    natural resource conservation, NRDC strongly supports the
    Administration's proposal for a full and permanently funded Lands
    Legacy Initiative, which includes the Forest Legacy Program. We have
    endorsed the ``Resources 2000 Act'' introduced by Senator Boxer and
    Rep. Miller (S. 446, H.R. 798), which would provide permanent annual
    funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Forest Legacy and
    other land protection programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NRDC is a non-profit environmental membership organization with
    400,000 members and contributors nationwide. Since 1970, NRDC's
    scientists, lawyers and staff have been working to protect the world's
    natural resources and improve the quality of the human environment.
    NRDC has offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los
    Angeles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The loss of intact forest landscapes poses a serious threat to
    biological diversity and the environment. U.S. Department of
    Agriculture statistics reveal that more than half a million acres of
    private timberland are converted to development each year. Among other
    impacts, the resulting forest fragmentation degrades critical habitat
    for many resident and migratory birds and other species.\2\ Permanent
    conversion of forest lands also sacrifices an important resource for
    carbon sequestration to combat global warming.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Research Council, Forested Landscapes in Perspective:
    Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's
    Nonfederal Forests, pp. 59-60 (National Academy Press, Washington,
    D.C., 1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Conservation easements represent a cost-effective tool for keeping
    private land in forest cover. In a growing number of cases in different
    regions of the country, the easement tool has been successfully applied
    on working forests, where easement terms are structured to permit
    commercial timber harvesting with conservation safeguards.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ K. Slee, ``Evolving Easements on Working Forestlands,'' Vol. 17
    Exchange: The Journal of the Land Trust Alliance, pp. 5-8 (Spring
    1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Created under the 1990 farm bill, the Forest Legacy Program has
    provided crucial financing for voluntary conservation easement
    transactions. The program now operates mainly under a system of federal
    grants to states for purchase of conservation easements on private
    forest lands. Federal funds cover 75 percent of the grants, with 25
    percent in matching support provided by states or other non-federal
    sources. Easements created under Forest Legacy Program grants allow
    private landowners to harvest timber on their property consistent with
    environmental stewardship principles and practices. Since the program's
    inception, more than 69,000 acres of working timberland have been
    enrolled as Forest Legacy lands.
        Low and unpredictable funding levels have prevented the Forest
    Legacy Program from achieving its potential. This year's $7 million
    annual program budget falls well short of the amount needed to fund the
    current docket of worthy grant applications. Low funding is a deterrent
    to adding to the list of 17 states currently active in the program.
        The Forest Legacy Program employs geographic priority-setting to
    assure that significant conservation benefits result from the public
    investment. Participating states identify and map ``Forest Legacy
    Areas'' on the basis of their important forest resource values
    threatened by permanent conversion, and the likely effectiveness of the
    Forest Legacy Program in protecting those values. Moreover, approved
    multi-resource management plans are required of all participating
    landowners. This requirement helps to guarantee good stewardship of
    forest soil and water quality, recreation, timber, scenery, fish and
    wildlife.
        Land managed for timber production under the Forest Legacy Program
    could be well-positioned to help meet growing demand for wood
    originating from certified, well-managed forests. For example, the
    Certified Forest Products Council (CFPC) was launched in 1997 as a non-
    profit, voluntary business initiative dedicated to increasing the
    market for independently certified forest products in North America.
    The CFPC has a growing and diverse membership of corporate partners
    that includes large and small companies across the forest products
    value chain. For example, Nike Inc., Habitat for Humanity, The Home
    Depot, Colonial Craft, Berkeley Mills and Furniture Co., and the
    architectural firm of William McDonough & Partners are all CFPC
    members.
        In summary, the Forest Legacy Program represents an innovative and
    sensible vehicle for conservation partnerships linking the federal
    government, the states, and the private sector. Funding the program at
    the proposed $50 million level would help secure lasting protection for
    America's productive forest lands.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Southern Environmental Law Center
        The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) welcomes the
    opportunity to submit this statement to the Senate Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee on the issue of fiscal year 2000
    appropriations and thanks the Subcommittee for its careful
    consideration of the topics covered.
        SELC is a non-profit public interest advocacy group providing
    comprehensive free legal services on environmental issues in the
    Southeast. SELC also studies environmental problems, monitors state and
    federal regulatory programs, and engages in public education
    activities. SELC is active in a six-state region that encompasses the
    Southern Appalachian Mountains, including Alabama, Georgia, North
    Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, with offices in
    Atlanta, Chapel Hill, and Charlottesville.
        Among other areas, SELC has expertise in management of the Southern
    Appalachian National Forests which is particularly relevant to the
    appropriations being considered by this Subcommittee. The Southern
    Appalachian states contain a special forest ecosystem with significance
    for the North American continent as one of the most ecologically
    diverse regions in the world. The 1996 Southern Appalachian Assessment
    (SAA) identifies no fewer than nine forest classes prevalent in the
    region and states that more species of trees are native to the Southern
    Appalachians than to any other northern temperate region of the globe.
    The region is also home to some of the most outstanding outdoor
    recreation opportunities in the nation and, since it is within a day's
    drive of one-half of the U.S. population, it draws numerous visitors
    from many other parts of the country. The SAA also identifies 190 rare,
    threatened, and endangered aquatic species within the Southern
    Appalachians.
        Decisions made within the context of the Forest Service budget are
    crucial to the effective protection of these unique resources. Budget
    items meriting specific scrutiny and action from this Subcommittee
    include commodity timber sales, road construction, off-budget trust
    funds, and county payments.
        First, the budget for commodity timber sales should be limited so
    as to end below cost timber sales and to prevent environmental damage.
    The Forest Service's timber program as currently practiced results in
    serious degradation of the unique resources of the Southern Appalachian
    region and is financially irresponsible. National Forest logging has
    damaged wildlife habitat and increased soil erosion and sedimentation
    in high quality streams. Below cost timber sales are particularly
    likely to occur in areas with steep slopes and higher elevations, which
    are conditions prevalent throughout the Southern Appalachians. At the
    same time, the program loses money. According to a 1998 General
    Accounting Office report, over the three years from 1995 to 1997, the
    costs of the Forest Service's logging program exceeded returns to the
    Treasury by $1.05 billion.
        The second area of concern, related to commodity timber sales, is
    the road construction budget. Funding for road construction in roadless
    areas should be eliminated, and overall funding for road construction
    should be reduced while the Forest Service develops its long-term
    transportation policy. Road construction is one of the most
    environmentally damaging activities practiced by the Forest Service
    because it contributes to water pollution and the destruction of
    wildlife habitat. Moreover, road construction continues to be linked to
    timber sales with ninety-five percent of new road construction on
    National Forests in recent years being completed for logging
    activities. All of this construction activity occurs in an obviously
    unsustainable fashion. In his State of the Forest speech for 1999,
    Forest Service Chief Dombeck identified a road maintenance backlog of
    $8.5 billion. This year's Forest Service budget should increase funding
    for legitimate maintenance and repair needs, which include
    environmentally necessary road re-construction and road obliteration.
        SELC's third area of concern focuses on the Forest Service's off-
    budget trust funds. These funds are the Salvage Sale Fund, the Knutson-
    Vandenberg (K-V) Fund, the Brush Disposal Fund, and the Roads and
    Trails Fund. These funds should be reformed by requiring that they be
    used for their original stewardship purposes, such as reforestation,
    and by removing any incentive for timber harvesting as a means of
    increasing agency revenue. An additional problem with these funds is
    their use by the Forest Service to escape Congressional oversight.
    Under current practice, the Forest Service captures significant amounts
    of money in these funds in the form of charges for indirect and
    overhead expenses. The result is that the Forest Service retains money
    that should properly be returned to the U.S. Treasury. This practice
    should be ended in order to return Forest Service activities to
    Congressional control.
        Finally, SELC recommends that this year's appropriations language
    should de-link payments to counties from National Forest timber
    harvesting revenues while ensuring that counties containing National
    Forest lands are adequately compensated for lost property tax revenue
    through a fully funded Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) or comparable
    program. Many current and former county commissioners are now
    recognizing that this program forces county governments in the
    direction of non-sustainable positions on ecologically critical issues
    and creates significant funding uncertainty for rural schools, roads,
    and other infrastructure. Again, in his State of the Forest speech,
    Chief Dombeck advocated de-linking these payments and replacing them
    with a stable funding source that would hold counties harmless from
    fluctuations in the timber market.
        SELC stands ready to assist this Subcommittee by submitting, upon
    request, additional information on any of these Forest Service budget
    issues and, particularly, by providing information on the unique and
    important Southern Appalachian forest environment. We appreciate the
    Subcommittee's attention to these matters.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Myrna Johnson, Director, ORCA
        ORCA is the trade association for the $8 billion human-powered
    outdoor recreation industry. Our members are manufacturers, retailers,
    and suppliers of backpacking, hiking, kayaking, canoeing, backcountry
    skiing and climbing equipment, as well as service providers for these
    activities. We urge the Committee to increase funding for recreation
    management and trails at the National Park Service, U.S. Forest
    Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, and to fully fund the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, we urge the Committee not to
    extend the recreation user fee program beyond its scheduled fiscal year
    2001 end, and to urge you and the agencies to evaluate the
    demonstration programs with serious criteria before requesting or
    implementing a permanent program.
                                 forest service
        We are deeply concerned about the Administration's proposed USDA
    Forest Service recreation budget for fiscal year 2000. As we enter the
    new millennium and a new era for the Forest Service, we believe it is
    incumbent on Congress to invest in recreation, the future of our
    national forests.
        The Forest Service itself estimates that in the year 2000,
    recreation will create 74.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product
    generated from Forest Service land, yet recreation accounts for only 8
    percent of the Forest Service proposed budget for fiscal year 2000. We
    urge the Committee to increase that percentage to at least 15 percent
    in fiscal year 2000, as a first step in providing adequate funds for a
    very important player in the forest economy.
        The current investment does not match the role recreation plays,
    nor does it meet the needs of the growing number of recreationists
    using Forest Service land. The Forest Service indicates that
    recreational visits to national forests in 1993 totaled 859 million
    visits in 1996; they project that number to be 930 million visitors in
    1998.
        Yet the numbers of personnel providing recreation services and the
    resources available to manage for recreation is stagnant or declining.
    The numbers of recreation management personnel has decreased from 2309
    in fiscal year 1998 to 1934 in fiscal year 1999. The number is
    projected to hold steady for fiscal year 2000, but those FTEs will have
    less resources with which to do their job. Once again, we need to point
    out that this is not how we believe a growth area should be treated,
    particularly one that is heavily service-oriented. We know that in many
    regions, the recreation management staff is so small that there is
    little to no staff to write permits, and volunteers are relied on more
    and more to be in contact with the public when a professional touch is
    needed.
                             national park service
        Only a fraction of the National Scenic Trails under Park Service
    care are in place and the agency's successful Rivers, Trails, and
    Conservation Assistance program meets less than 50 percent of the
    demand for its services. These trails are the crown jewels of America's
    trail system, and need additional support.
                           bureau of land management
        BLM has seen significant increases in recreation while staff
    resources have decreased. This should be rectified.
                        land and water conservation fund
        We believe that providing funding for parks and open space at the
    federal and state levels via LWCF is the single best way to preserve
    America's great places and natural heritage, provide quality recreation
    opportunities for all Americans, invest in our children's health and
    quality of life, and implement solutions for urban sprawl--a natural
    resource concern that has the potential to dramatically change
    America's landscape. We urge this committee to fully fund the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund, both the federal and state sides of the
    program.
        Here are our specific requests for the fiscal year 2000
    appropriations bill:
        Forest Service Recreation management. $225 million for fiscal year
    2000. $170.3 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1998, but only
    $145 million was available for fiscal year 1999. The request for fiscal
    year 2000 is functionally $4 million less than 1999 because of
    uncontrollable costs, and $25 million less than 1998. This is not a way
    to treat a program that fits into the highest priorities for the
    agency.
        FS Trail maintenance. $35 million for fiscal year 2000. The
    Administration has requested $20.4 million; the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation was $18.4 million. The Forest Service has documented a
    backlog of $257 million in trail maintenance projects.
        FS Trails Construction/Re-construction: $30 million for fiscal year
    2000. $29.5 million was available in fiscal year 1999; the
    Administration has requested only 13.05 million.
        FS Wilderness Management: $50 million for fiscal year 2000. $29.5
    million is available for fiscal year 1999. The Administration has
    requested $36.5 million.
        FS Heritage Resources: $25 million for fiscal year 2000. $13.05 is
    available for fiscal year 1999. The Administration has requested level
    funding from last year.
        NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance. $12 million. $7
    million was available in fiscal year 1999.
        NPS National Trails System. $7 million, up from $3.5 million in
    fiscal year 1999.
        BLM Recreation Management. Increase recreation management by $10.2
    million over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
        BLM Recreation Maintenance. Increase recreation management by $6.7
    million over fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund. $900 million for fiscal year
    2000, including a fair share for the stateside program.
                      recreation fee demonstration program
        In addition, we believe last year's appropriations conference
    committee report and this year's forest service budget document come
    dangerously close to a breach of the promise made to the American
    people when the recreation fee demonstration program was created: that
    user fees would supplement, not supplant, current funding. We wish to
    let the Committee know that the initial support for the fee program
    within the ORCA membership is declining. One reason for declining
    support is that it appears that fees are not adding recreation funds to
    the mix, but rather making up for decreases in general funding or
    paying for little more than enforcement of the new fees.
        In fact, the FS budget document indicates that the appropriation
    levels they have requested are not enough ``to operate facilities and
    trails to meet full quality standards.'' One of their suggestions for
    meeting the shortfall is ``aggressive implementation of the Recreation
    Fee demonstration pilot.'' This ``aggressive implementation'' is
    disturbing to recreationists who do not want to be nickeled and dimed
    to death or charged multiple fees for access to particular recreational
    activities.
        We urge the committee to use the currently established
    demonstration program to fully evaluate the program for user support
    and for creating guidelines for successful and unsuccessful programs.
    We do not support additional extensions of the demonstration program,
    and seek a better accounting of what programs have and have not worked
    before moving ahead with a permanent program. The mere fact that the
    program raises money is not a good enough reason for continuing the
    program indefinitely.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material for the
    record. If you have questions, do not hesitate to call.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Robert M. Evetts, President, National Association
                        of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
        I am the current President of the National Association of Abandoned
    Mine Land Programs which represents twenty-three States and three
    Tribes that administer approved abandoned mine land reclamation
    programs. The Association was organized for the purpose of enhancing
    communication, coordination, and consistency between the States, Tribes
    and the Office of Surface Mining on issues related to Title IV of the
    Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, Public Law
    95-87). I am pleased to represent the Association by providing comments
    to you regarding the proposed budget for the Office of Surface Mining
    (OSM) for the fiscal year 2000.
        The Abandoned Mine Land Program has successfully administered and
    aggressively pursued the abatement of mine hazards and the active
    reclamation of lands adversely affected by past mining activities
    across the United States. Many of these abandoned mine lands exhibit
    scars and environmental degradation which occurred more than 150 years
    ago. These scars and hazards were left unremediated to heal and abate
    themselves which they have not done.
        Congress acted in a responsible effort to remedy these abandoned
    mine land problems in 1977 when it enacted the Surface Mining Control
    and Reclamation Act. The Act established a program through which
    abandoned mine hazards and reclamation could be addressed without
    placing an increased financial burden on the citizens or negatively
    impacting the nation's debt. The plan would be funded by a tax on
    active coal production; the problems created by past mining activities
    would be directly or indirectly remediated by the same industry that
    created them.
        As background, coal producers across the nation have contributed in
    excess of $5.1 billion dollars in taxes and interest to the Abandoned
    Mine Land Trust Fund since fiscal year 1977. Under the Act, this amount
    less a stipulated amount to the United Mine Workers of America Combined
    Benefit Fund, should have been made available for AML reclamation.
    Unfortunately, annual appropriations have been considerably less than
    the states anticipated which is also inconsistent with the intent of
    the Act. This historical practice of under funding the AML program
    activities has resulted in an unappropriated AML Trust Fund balance
    which will exceed 1.5 billion dollars by the end of this year. This
    unappropriated balance is growing at the rate of more than 100 million
    dollars a year. It seems unconscionable to allow the accumulation of
    these dedicated funds to continue while serious health and safety
    hazards still exist and remain unabated.
        The Membership of the Association and I would like to express the
    following concerns regarding the President's proposed fiscal year 2000
    Budget:
                              aml program funding
        The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget is a commendable step in the
    right direction and we support the Administration's effort to increase
    AML funding. However, the proposed budget still perpetuates the
    practice of inadequate AML funding. The proposal would only appropriate
    approximately 55 percent of the fiscal year 2000 projected income to
    the Trust Fund, allowing the rapid and continued accumulation of
    unappropriated balances.
        The 26 member States and Tribes who administer Abandoned Mine Land
    Programs have an established record of accomplishments spanning the
    past 18 years. One of the primary contributing factors to the overall
    program success has been the ability of the individual states and
    tribes to establish program needs, prioritize projects and administer
    programs tailored to the needs of their respective states and tribes.
        The proposed increase of $25 million to reclaim abandoned mine
    sites that pose significant threats to human safety will, in fact,
    require a reprioritization of state projects in order to establish
    funding eligibility. This manipulation of funding is or could be
    detrimental to the objectives of the individual States and/or Tribes
    and places OSM in a ``controlling'' rather than an ``oversight'' role
    in the AML Program. This does not seem to coincide with the ``less
    government'' initiative advocated over the past few years. The proposed
    $25 million increase is directed to two types of projects which are
    almost one in the same: $22 million in support of the President's Clean
    Water Action Plan; and $3 million increase in funding for the
    Appalachian The Honorable Ralph Regula The Honorable Norman Dicks April
    9, 1999 Page Three
        Clean Streams Initiative ($2 million to eligible AML State/Tribal
    grants and $1 million in cooperative agreements for not-for-profit
    groups). Both of these programs are in support of the Clean Water
    Action Plan. This type of stipulated funding increase will not allow
    all of the program States/Tribes to compete for this funding on an
    equal basis. Not all states are faced with the same stream and water
    shed problems but all have priority 1 and 2 problems to remediate.
        The proposed increase in AML funding is part of the Administrations
    effort to fund the AML program at a level commensurate to fee receipts
    collected. This effort, though commendable, does not address the fact
    that the funding (fee collection) under the Act will end in 2004 unless
    extended. It would appear more logical that we should advocate an
    immediate and recurring appropriation which would be commensurate to
    the projected fee collection each year. This still would not address
    the current unappropriated AML Trust Fund balance of more than $1.4
    billion.
        The Surface Control and Reclamation Act was amended in 1990 to
    assure minimum program states a recurring funding level of $2 million.
    Stability in funding is an absolute necessity, especially when trying
    to establish long-term planning at the minimum funding level. Beginning
    in fiscal year 1995, appropriations fell 25 percent below the
    previously established $2 million funding level and have continued to
    be at $1.5 million through fiscal year 1999. We appreciate and are in
    support of the President's effort to restore the minimum state program
    funding to the $2 million level.
        The AML Trust Fund balance currently exceeds $1.4 billion. The
    Association is supportive of a recurring funding appropriation which
    would either substantially reduce or preferably bring the trust fund
    balance to zero by the end of the current fee collection, which is set
    to expire in 2004. This would allow for the States and Tribes to plan
    ahead to maximize their reclamation efforts prior to the end of the
    Program.
                                    summary
        It is the belief of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
    Programs, as well as the public, that the AML program was created for
    the express purpose of addressing the serious health and safety
    problems which exist throughout the nation's coal fields. The
    reclamation of these sites should be performed in an expedient and
    effective manner. The AML program States and Tribes have demonstrated
    that they have effective programs in place and are capable of
    accomplishing these requirements, providing that adequate funding is
    available. Implementation of the coal production tax has provided
    obvious in-place funding. The Honorable Ralph Regula The Honorable
    Norman Dicks April 9, 1999 Page Four
        To further these goals, the Association respectfully requests that
    the subcommittee consider the following recommendations:
        1. Recommend that fiscal year 2000 appropriations for AML program
    activities equal or exceed the amount of anticipated fee collections to
    the AML Trust Fund in fiscal year 2000.
        2. Recommend increased funding level to adequately fund the
    Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative without impacting the State
    Reclamation Grant funding.
        3. Insure that the minimum program states receive no less than the
    $2 million level of funding as provided for in SMCRA.
        4. Institute a long-term management plan for the AML Trust Fund
    which would reduce it to a zero balance on or before the expiration of
    the fee collection period.
        The Association is appreciative of this opportunity to present its
    comments and recommendations on the OSM proposed fiscal year 2000
    budget. I would be glad to address any request for clarification or
    additional information that the Subcommittee or Committee may desire.
                                     ______

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
     Prepared Statement of Dr. Gerald P. Huffman, Director, Consortium for
                        Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
                       cooperative research c1 chemistry
        C1 chemistry is the conversion of carbon-containing materials that
    contain one carbon atom per molecule into valuable transportation fuels
    and chemical products. In 1999, with the support of the U.S. Department
    of Energy, the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science (CFFLS),
    a research consortium with participants from the universities of
    Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, Pittsburgh and Auburn, initiated a new
    basic research program on C1 chemistry. The CFFLS is requesting $1.6
    million from the Department of Energy to continue this program in
    fiscal year 2000. This represents a modest increase over the $1.4
    million of funding provided for this program by DOE in fiscal year
    1999. The CFFLS research program on C1 chemistry is a cooperative
    program jointly sponsored by the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Resources (EE) Office of Transportation Technology (OTT) and the DOE
    Fossil Energy (FE) Advanced Research and Environmental Technology
    (AR&ET) division. We are requesting $1.2 million from DOE EE OTT and
    $0.4 million from DOE FE AR&ET. The five Consortium universities will
    provide $0.25 of cost sharing for every $1.00 of federal funding, or
    $400,000, to support this research program in fiscal year 2000.
        The feedstocks for C1 chemistry include natural gas, carbon
    dioxide, methanol, and synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and
    hydrogen). Synthesis gas, or syngas, is produced principally by
    reforming of natural gas, which is primarily methane, with steam. It
    can also be produced by gasification of coal, biomass, or organic
    wastes. Syngas is the source of nearly all of the hydrogen and methanol
    produced. It is also the primary source of many chemicals and can be a
    source of very clean transportation fuels. Because of new environmental
    standards now being promulgated, C1 chemistry is likely to become a
    major source of transportation fuel in the U.S. early in the next
    century.
        In cooperation with DOE, the Consortium has identified several
    research topics that will be emphasized in this program to help meet
    our national energy needs and environmental goals. The following areas
    have been identified as the most critical:
        1. Conversion of methanol and syngas into clean, oxygenated,
    transportation fuels.
        2. Conversion of natural gas into syngas.
        3. Conversion of syngas, natural gas and methanol into hydrogen.
        A brief summary of the CFFLS program for each of these research
    topics is given below.
        Transportation fuel.--A principal goal of the DOE in the
    transportation sector is to develop new sources of ultra clean diesel
    fuel for use in light trucks and sports utility vehicles, the use of
    which has increased dramatically in this country over the past several
    years. The Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process is one option for the
    production of such diesel fuel. However, F-T plants are very large and
    expensive and there are conflicting views regarding the best technology
    for a F-T plant. Most F-T development is likely to occur abroad,
    converting cheap foreign natural gas into diesel fuel and importing it
    to the U.S. In contrast, the technology to convert syngas into methanol
    is a comparatively simple and relatively inexpensive technology.
    Currently, there are only two commercial F-T plants in the world.
    However, there are many operating methanol plants through out the world
    and in the U.S. Our research will therefore focus on reacting methanol
    and syngas to produce novel, oxygenated, diesel fuels that are superior
    to any now being produced. These diesel fuels have the potential to
    significantly increase mileage rates attained by trucks and sports
    utility vehicles, while markedly reducing emissions of fine particulate
    matter and sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Reduction of airborne
    particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)
    is a major goal of both the DOE and the EPA.
        Conversion of natural gas into syngas.--There is an abundance of
    remote natural gas, much of which is currently being wasted. The
    Alaskan oil fields represent a remote natural gas source in the U.S.
    that is not currently being utilized. Therefore, it is important to
    develop more effective technology to convert natural gas into syngas.
    This step is the costliest part of C1 chemistry. Most syngas is
    currently made by reforming natural gas (methane) by reaction with
    steam. However, there are several advantages to using carbon dioxide to
    reform natural gas to syngas.
      --Many natural gas sources in nature contain a significant percentage
            (20-50 percent) of carbon dioxide in addition to methane.
      -- The resulting syngas has a more favorable hydrogen to carbon ratio
            for the production of transportation fuels.
      --The reaction of carbon dioxide with natural gas to produce syngas
            has the advantage of using significant amounts of carbon
            dioxide in a productive manner.
        The CFFLS research will focus on the development of novel catalysts
    for reforming of natural gas with carbon dioxide that will have higher
    activities and longer active lifetimes.
        Hydrogen.--Research will focus on development of new nanoscale
    catalysts and processes to improve the conversion of syngas, methanol
    and natural gas into hydrogen free of carbon monoxide contamination.
    The high purity hydrogen produced from such conversion processes can be
    used in advanced, pollution free, power sources known as fuel cells, as
    well as for traditional uses (ammonia, refining, etc.). A long term
    goal of DOE is the development of high efficiency, pollution free
    vehicles powered by fuel cells. Because of our existing infrastructure,
    there are advantages to continuing to use liquid fuel in vehicles. One
    possible scenario is vehicles that use methanol as the primary fuel,
    with on board reforming devices to convert the methanol to the hydrogen
    required by fuel cells. Therefore, our program will investigate
    technology for producing hydrogen from methanol.
                      economic and environmental benefits
        Although it will require a long-term research effort, the practical
    benefits of the technology that could ultimately be developed from this
    research are substantial. Several potential economic and environmental
    benefits that could result from C1 chemistry research are briefly
    summarized below.
      --Utilization of remote natural gas (e.g., from the Alaskan oil
            fields).
      --Domestic production of clean, high efficiency, diesel and other
            transportation fuel.
      --Reduction of the U.S. trade deficit.
      --Reduction of emissions of fine particulate matter
            (PM2.5).
      --Reductions of emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides.
      --Productive use of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
                           summary and budget request
        The Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science, a research
    consortium with participants from the universities of Kentucky, West
    Virginia, Utah, Pittsburgh and Auburn, has initiated a coordinated
    basic research program on C1 chemistry. The goal of the program is to
    develop technology to convert simple carbon feedstocks (natural gas,
    carbon dioxide, methanol and syngas) into valuable products, such as
    ultra clean, high efficiency transportation fuel, hydrogen, and
    chemicals. The Consortium is requesting $1.6 million from the
    Department of Energy to support this program in fiscal year 2000, a
    modest increase over the level of support provided in fiscal year 1999.
    The five Consortium universities will provide $0.25 of cost sharing for
    every $1.00 of federal funding, or $400,000 per year.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Richard Bajura, Director; and George Fumich,
     program advisor, National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West
                              Virginia University
        Chairman Gorton and Members of the Subcommittee: This statement was
    prepared by Richard Bajura, Director of the National Research Center
    for Coal and Energy, and George Fumich, a Program Advisor for the
    Center. We appreciate your consideration of our statement regarding
    programs in Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation on the topic of
    alternative transportation fuels and chemicals.

            need for alternative transportation fuels and chemicals
        The expanding U.S. dependence on imported petroleum is detrimental
    to our energy security and to our balance of payments in foreign trade.
    Oil imports are projected to increase to a level of 60 percent of our
    total consumption by 2010. Approximately 98 percent of the fuels that
    power our nation's transportation sector are derived from petroleum-
    based fuels.
        Emissions of carbon dioxide from the transportation sector are
    expected to increase by 50 percent over the next fifty years. Since
    1973, the year of the Oil Embargo, essentially all of the increase in
    U.S. highway fuel consumption has been due to trucks. Petroleum-based
    fuels are a major source of particulate emissions in heavy duty
    engines. In California, for example, heavy duty diesel trucks are only
    2 percent of the vehicles on the road, but account for 30 percent of
    the smog emissions and 70 percent of the particulate emissions.
        Research accomplished thus far indicates that by using indirect
    liquefaction technologies, alternative transportation fuels can be
    produced which are higher in energy content and environmentally
    superior to petroleum based fuels. The research area called C-1
    Chemistry offers much promise for the development of new fuels, fuel
    additives, and value added chemicals. C-1 Chemistry is based on using
    feedstocks which initially have only one carbon atom per molecule, such
    as methane [CH4], carbon monoxide [CO] and methanol [CH30H].
             programs of the office of transportation technologies
        Syngas produced from coal or natural gas, coupled with advanced
    research in C-1 Chemistry, can be the base from which the U.S. can
    build commercially viable co-production industries for producing
    alternative transportation fuels and value-added chemicals. In fiscal
    year 1999, your Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies supported the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
    to initiate research in C-1 Chemistry under the Office of
    Transportation Technologies. This program is a cooperative effort
    between our Consortium, which has five member schools, the Office of
    Transportation Technologies, and the Office of Fossil Energy.
        We request your continued support for this program through an
    additional appropriation of $1.2 million in the fiscal year 2000 budget
    of the Office of Transportation Technologies. This research is
    particularly relevant to programs in heavy vehicle technologies in view
    of the contribution of such vehicles to the overall level of emissions
    from the transportation sector.
                    programs in the office of fossil energy
        We believe it is in our national interest to develop advanced
    programs which will permit the cost-effective conversion of coal to
    cleaner liquid fuels, value added chemicals, and more advanced fuels
    such as hydrogen. Continued investments are required to reduce the cost
    of fuels and chemicals production and to encourage the industrial
    acceptance and early commercialization of viable co-production
    technologies in support of Vision 21 programs.
        In this regard, we are recommending additional funding of $2
    million for Fossil Energy programs in the area of Indirect Liquefaction
    research to a level of $9,659,000 for fiscal year 2000. We recommend
    that these funds initially be used to support research in C-1
    Chemistry, catalysis, and process development. Out year funding
    increases are recommended for reactor modeling, scale-up studies and
    fuels testing, followed later by performance studies in pilot plants
    and demonstration plants. This kind of research program is required to
    reduce the risk of commercializing indirect liquefaction plants,
    thereby encouraging investments by the private sector. This program can
    yield payback benefits through increased employment and reduced balance
    of payments deficits through the use of our vast coal reserves.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the
    Subcommittee. We would be pleased to provide additional information
    regarding these programs as needed.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Ronald J. Pugmire, Ph.D., Associate Vice
     President for Research, Professor of Chemical and Fuels Engineering,
                               University of Utah
        In your considerations for the fiscal year 2000 budget, I recommend
    support for the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
    (CFFLS), a five-university research consortium with approximately 100
    participants from: the University of Kentucky, West Virginia
    University, the University of Utah, the University of Pittsburgh, and
    Auburn University. Over the past two years, the consortium has
    developed very promising technology for C1 chemistry.
        C1 chemistry is the conversion of feedstocks such as natural gas,
    carbon dioxide, and synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and
    hydrogen) into hydrocarbon products. Synthesis gas, or syngas, is
    produced principally by reaction of natural gas with steam. It can also
    be produced by gasification of coal, biomass, or organic wastes.
        Because of new environmental standards now being promulgated, C1
    chemistry is likely to become a major source of transportation fuel in
    the U.S. early in the next century. Although there is a DOE program on
    Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, a form of C1 chemistry, there is currently
    no coherent national research program on the more innovative aspects of
    this important technology. To fill this void, the Consortium for Fossil
    Fuel Liquefaction Science, a research consortium with participants from
    the universities of Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, Pittsburgh and
    Auburn, has initiated a basic research program on C1 chemistry. The
    Consortium has made a thorough study of C1 chemistry to determine which
    research topics should be emphasized to meet our national energy needs
    and environmental goals. The following areas have been identified:
        1. Conversion of natural gas into syugas. Novel plasma reactors and
    reaction of natural gas with carbon dioxide will be investigated.
        2. Conversion of syngas into clean diesel and other transportation
    fuels. We will investigate reaction of syngas with methanol to produce
    oxygenated diesel fuel that should be cheaper and better than Fischer-
    Tropsch diesel fuel.
        3. Conversion of syngas into hydrogen. Catalytic processes will be
    developed to produce hydrogen that is free of carbon monoxide and can
    be used in fuel cells.
        4. Conversion of syngas into value-added chemicals. Direct
    synthesis of a number of value-added chemicals from syngas could
    markedly improve economics.
                      economic and environmental benefits
      --Utilization of 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year with
            a value of approximately $4 billion.
      --Production of 3 trillion cubic feet of hydrogen per year with a
            value of approximately $7 billion.
      --Production of 1.5 billion barrels of diesel fuel per year with a
            value of $60 billion.
      --Reduction of the trade deficit due to oil imports by up to $30
            billion per year.
      --Reduction of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, by
            up to 400 million tons per year or approximately 10 percent.
      --Reduction of U.S. emissions of fine particulate matter and sulfur
            and nitrogen oxides by approximately 10 percent.
        The CFFLS is requesting $1.5 million from DOE Fossil Energy in
    fiscal year 2000, with an aggregate of $0.75 million in cost-sharing to
    be provided by the five consortium universities. Your support for this
    important program is requested.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Gerald Holder, Dean; John W. Tierney, Professor;
        and Irving Wender, Distinguished University Research Professor,
                            University of Pittsburgh
        Because of new environmental standards now being promulgated and in
    the interest of increased efficiency, the Consortium For Fossil Fuel
    Liquefaction Science (CFFLS), consisting of participants from the
    Universities of Pittsburgh, Kentucky, Utah, West Virginia and Auburn
    have, after thorough study, been engaged in a basic research program on
    C1 chemistry. C1 chemistry involves the conversion of simple molecules
    such as natural gas, carbon dioxide, synthesis gas (a mixture of
    hydrogen and carbon monoxide) and methanol into environmentally clean,
    efficient transportation fuels as well as chemicals and polymers.
        There is currently no coherent national research program on
    innovative aspects of this expanding technology. Although DOE has a
    program on the conversion of synthesis gas to transportation fuels by
    the Fischer-Tropsch process, no such plants will be built in the lower
    48 states; instead, advantage is being taken of cheap natural gas
    converted to synthesis gas in distant countries. Indeed, to meet diesel
    fuel standards in California, Fischer-Tropsch diesel has been imported
    from a Royal Dutch Shell plant built in Malaysia.
        The CFFLS has developed a program on C1 chemistry that deals with
    the most important needs and aspects of this country. The program
    involves cheaper ways of converting natural gas, biomass or coal into
    synthesis gas, the conversion of two global warming gases, methane and
    carbon dioxide, into synthesis gas and the conversion of methane and
    hydrocarbons into pure hydrogen gas for use in fuel cells. Synthesis
    gas is the source of essentially all the hydrogen produced in the U. S.
    This country has a large capacity for the production of methanol, all
    produced from synthesis gas; diesel fuel of the highest quality,
    meeting environmental and efficiency requirements can be made directly
    from synthesis gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process or from methanol,
    and the CFFLS has a program to do this. The U.S. may look to the
    conversion of natural gas in turnkey plants to methanol which can then
    be used to meet our needs for the production of gasoline, diesel, jet
    fuels, lubricating oils, chemicals and polymers.
        While acknowledging the realities of the present budget austerity,
    the undersigned recommend and request your strong support for the much-
    needed program and budget proposed for the Consortium.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of John M. Owens, Associate Dean for Research,
                               Auburn University
        In the course of your deliberations for fiscal year 2000
    appropriations please be aware of the importance of current federal
    funding for research now under way at Auburn University through the
    Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science.
        This program is insuring the continuation of research on the
    conversion of domestic fossil fuel and wastes into transportation fuel
    and chemicals. The research is being carried out by an experienced team
    of faculty that has more than 50 years of collective experience with
    this technology. Reduced Federal and private funding has threatened the
    existence of this team and similar ones in the United States. Although
    significant funds are being provided by the State of Alabama for our
    work, they are insufficient to maintain a high quality program over the
    long term.
        Probably the most important products of academic research are the
    students produced for industry and government. Dramatic decreases in
    federal funding for such research are threatening the production of the
    next generation of scientists and engineers that will conduct essential
    research programs on the conversion of domestic fossil fuels into
    transportation fuels and chemicals.
        Research initiatives at Auburn are coordinated with other members
    of the Consortium (University of Kentucky, University of Utah,
    University of Pittsburgh, and West Virginia University) and focus on C1
    chemistry. C1 chemistry encompasses the conversion of feed stocks such
    as natural gas, carbon dioxide, and synthesis gas into clean
    transportation fuels, hydrogen and chemicals. It is likely that C1
    chemistry will be a major source of transportation fuel in the country
    early in the next century. We strongly support funding of this program
    in order to develop an important option in the solution of a national
    problem.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, this testimony is
    submitted on behalf of the National Association of State Energy
    Officials (NASEO). The National Association of State Energy Officials
    is comprised of energy officials from 53 of the 56 State and Territory
    Energy Offices.. We are testifying in support of funding for the State
    Energy Program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
        Specifically, NASEO supports funding levels of no less than the
    request contained in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for State
    Grant programs, including, $37 million for the State Energy Program
    (SEP), $154 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP),
    and the budget request levels for the competitive energy partnerships.
        In addition, we support the administration's request for the
    buildings sector to implement the building code provisions of the
    Energy Policy Act of 1992 through state grants, and we support the
    proposed budget for the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Within
    EIA's budget, we support the continuation of the State Heating Oil and
    Propane Program. We also urge the Subcommittee to support at least
    level funding for the Municipal Energy Management Program.
        Mr. Chairman, it has been more than a year since the House Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing in which my colleagues from
    Ohio, New York, and California testified on what they believed the
    Subcommittee needs to make a priority for research, development, and
    deployment funding. NASEO members agree that in order for our nation to
    remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must have a balanced
    approach to energy policy, an approach that includes government support
    for both R&D and deployment activities. Consequently, we have
    established six working groups whose mission it is to develop Memoranda
    of Understanding between DOE and the states.
        In order to have successful R&D initiatives we must ensure that the
    research is necessary, information is shared, markets are prepared, and
    that technologies are viable. Market preparation and deployment are the
    linkages that provide feedback to guide R&D and increase its relevance
    to businesses and consumers. State Energy Offices should be involved
    early in this process, along with state research institutions, in order
    to improve the use of DOE- and laboratory-developed programs.
        You have received testimony from a number of individuals and
    companies who will tell you of the wonderful successes that they have
    accomplished as a result of funding from this Subcommittee. We would
    add that many of these individuals and companies either received direct
    financial assistance or technical assistance from their State Energy
    Offices as well. The assistance that they received from their State
    Energy Office was more than likely funded by federal appropriations,
    state appropriations, or remnants of oil overcharge refunds that are
    perpetuated through revolving loan programs. Without a strong network
    of State Energy Offices, the funding requests to this Subcommittee
    might see a dramatic rise. Moreover, the assistance provided by the
    states provides greater value and greater local relevance to these
    national efforts.
        Like the Subcommittee, requests for assistance to the State Energy
    Offices continues to increase. Many of the efficiency initiatives, and
    corporate R&D programs that have historically been funded by utilities
    and industry have all but evaporated due to electric utility
    restructuring, and State Energy Offices are feeling the pressure to
    support the continuation of these activities.
        To date, 15 states have passed electricity restructuring
    legislation, while five others have acted through their public service
    commissions. Most other states are considering electric utility
    industry changes. These changes began with Energy Policy Act of 1992,
    which permitted wide expansion in the number of market participants.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accelerated these changes
    through Order 888, opening the transmission grid.
        As part of this change, traditional franchised utilities attempt to
    compete on the basis of price with non-utility generators, while public
    benefits programs, such as energy R&D, energy efficiency, renewable
    energy, fossil energy R&D, and low-income programs have all suffered.
    This is a gap that must be filled in order to meet national, state, and
    local needs. The State Energy Offices, such as my own, have been
    filling that gap, albeit with diminished resources. In a restructured
    environment, energy efficiency and fossil energy R&D programs must
    adapt to the changing reality of the new electric utility industry in
    which franchised utilities are no longer major technology deployment
    partners. A long-term strategic plan--of the type you seek to build by
    prioritizing research, development, and deployment appropriations--must
    include provisions for this changing industry structure.
        At the state level, the types of activities we are planning must
    also take into consideration these new trends. We hope to work with
    you, Mr. Chairman, to recognize the importance of coordinating energy
    R&D with energy deployment activities. The type of programs we have
    successfully implemented, include linking DOE's industrial programs
    with our state activities and those of our industries.
        For example, the State of Ohio worked with Alumitech, Inc., in
    Cleveland (through a NICE3 grant, state assistance, and Alumitech
    commitments) to develop and install facilities that would separate
    aluminum, salt, and other useful aluminum recycling by-products.
    Alumitech is now able to prevent energy losses and resource losses from
    by-products of the aluminum industry through the utilization of all
    components in the manufacturing process.
        In the state of Washington, the energy office coordinated and
    provided financial assistance to the City of Seattle and Boeing
    Corporation for a joint waste-to-energy project whereby effluent from
    Seattle's Renton treatment facility is used to heat and cool Boeing's
    Customer Services Training Center. This project has reduced the need
    for new generation capacity by 20 megawatts.
        States are also a great source for financing of school and hospital
    efficiency retrofits. A number of state and territory energy offices
    operate their own revolving loan programs for schools and hospitals
    including: Wyoming, Alabama, Tennessee, Maine, Indiana, Louisiana, the
    U.S. Virgin Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Iowa. In
    Vermont, my office works with the state Superintendents Association to
    address energy efficiency problems in the public schools. The objective
    is to attain long-term benefits and develop sound management practices.
    By working through the Superintendents Association we are able to gain
    quick and widespread approval for the program and ensure that it is
    responsive to local needs.
        In addition to schools and hospitals retrofit programs, State
    Energy Offices operate a number of other buildings programs. The
    buildings industry represents 8 percent of our GNP, 36 percent of our
    energy consumption, with over $232 billion in energy bills annually.
    However, the diverse and local nature of the buildings industry, makes
    this a challenging sector to impact on a national level. Thus, it is
    critical to maintain the state-based delivery mechanisms for national
    buildings programs. Fortunately, many states have excellent track
    records in delivering results in this area.
        Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, and
    Wisconsin all operate state buildings programs designed to increase the
    efficiency facilities through the installation of energy efficient
    equipment. A number of states, including Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, North
    Carolina, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and Tennessee, partner with
    local governments to finance community-wide energy efficiency planning.
    The Department of Energy also provides technical assistance to this
    effort and, in some instances, federal appropriations are made
    available to assist.
        Lighting is an area where DOE's research efforts have aided in
    developing a host of new, super efficient products. State Energy
    Offices are preparing the markets for these new products by conducting
    pilot programs that demonstrate the savings potential for new ballasts
    and lamps. Michigan, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin have all
    conducted their own market transformation programs which incorporate
    the use of new lighting technologies in state buildings, commercial
    buildings, single-family homes, and in public areas such as parks.
        In the past year, Minnesota, Delaware, Kansas, Nevada, Hawaii, and
    Louisiana have all utilized federal appropriations to update their
    state's building codes. The improvements in Louisiana alone will save
    $4 million in energy costs and reduce carbon emissions by 113 million
    pounds within 10 years.
        While buildings activities are a focus of a great number of
    programs, I am sure that you are quite familiar with their
    transportation efforts as well. From alternative fuels programs in
    Indiana, West Virginia, and Nebraska to transportation management
    projects in California, Washington, and Oregon, states are very
    effective in reducing our dependency on imported oil. In Oregon alone,
    the state has reduced the number of miles traveled by participants in
    their pilot telecommuting program by 4.1 million miles.
        NASEO also strongly supports the so-called Special Projects, known
    as competitive energy partnerships. These competitive programs, which
    provide matching funds to states in a variety of areas within
    buildings, transportation, and industry, allow State Energy Offices to
    conduct joint projects with industry and other partners. At your
    request, this is the first year that it is separately funded out of
    each division's accounts. It has been a dramatic success.
        We are pleased that since the summer of 1998, State Energy Offices
    in California, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas
    have focused some of their attention on making oil production a more
    cost effective business. Energy related oil extraction costs for
    independent producers can exceed 50 percent of the total costs of
    production. This combined with recent low oil prices has resulted in
    extremely tough times for small producers. In response, NASEO and the
    states developed a project with DOE's Offices of Fossil Energy and
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to provide technical assistance,
    testing, and financing for cost-effective energy improvements in the
    oil fields. The technical assistance and testing is being conducted
    utilizing federal and state appropriations and the financing utilizes
    private-sector capital. Our goal is to strengthen domestic producers
    and the associated service industry--providing both economic and energy
    security benefits.
        In addition to the ongoing work with the Office in the oil and gas
    industry, a number of State Energy Offices are working with Fossil
    Energy's coal division on activities relating to domestic clean coal
    technologies and international opportunities for exports of U.S. coal
    technologies. This work includes the expansion of our successful Peer
    Exchange Program into the international arena for advanced coal
    technology development. This new direction for State Energy Offices and
    the Office of Fossil Energy appears to be quite successful, and we look
    forward to additional partnerships in the future.
        Finally Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize that both the
    energy R&D and deployment programs cannot operate effectively without
    accurate, sufficient, and timely energy data from the Energy
    Information Administration. This is especially true in light of
    electricity restructuring and the addition of an array of new market
    participants. Therefore, we encourage the Subcommittee to support
    funding for the Energy Information Administration. We have worked
    closely with EIA, and they are an effective partner providing real-time
    data and information.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, we would like to remind the Subcommittee of the
    critical role that State Energy Offices play in the delivery of energy
    efficiency programs and a variety of other energy programs, in spite of
    the relatively small federal investment in the program. Our success is
    based upon our ability to directly meet the needs of taxpayers, small
    business people, farmers, and industry. We support at least the request
    of $37 million in funding for SEP for fiscal year 2000--a small price
    to pay for continued success.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the General Electric Power Systems
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric Power
    Systems (GE) for the information of the Committee during its review of
    the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget requests. GE
    strongly supports the Administration's request for $41.8 million for
    the Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program, including $32.590 million
    for major systems development, within the Fossil Energy budget account.
    DOE's funding request signifies the important contributions that ATS
    technology will make to the nation's energy security and environmental
    objectives. GE appreciates the strong Congressional support that has
    been so critical to the success of the ATS program, and welcomes this
    opportunity to update the Committee on the progress of the ATS research
    and development effort.
                        ge-doe ats cooperative agreement
        In March 1998, GE and DOE executed a modified Cooperative Agreement
    providing for GE's continued, cost-shared participation in the ATS
    program. The modified Cooperative Agreement reflects the continuing
    commitment of GE and DOE to the ATS program. The central goal of the
    ATS program--producing technology by 2000 that is ready for commercial
    application--is unchanged. DOE's fiscal year 2000 funding request
    represents the last major increment of Federal funding for the ATS
    program.
        The modified GE-DOE Cooperative Agreement, which extends through
    December 2000, eliminated the planned demonstration phase of the ATS
    program and extended the technology validation phase. Demonstration of
    the ATS technology will be the responsibility of industry at the end of
    the technology validation phase. Under the restructured ATS program, GE
    will manufacture and perform a full-speed, no-load test on a 60 Hertz
    machine by the end of 1999 at GE's Greenville, South Carolina facility.
    DOE cost sharing is critical to this aggressive schedule.
                          benefits of the ats program
        The ATS program occupies a key position in the DOE's fossil energy
    research and development portfolio, and is an integral part of the
    evolving ``Vision 21'' concept for future highly efficient, clean power
    generation. Through the government's partnership with industry, the ATS
    program is well on the way to supporting the commercial introduction of
    the world's most efficient gas turbine, securing U.S. technological
    leadership in this critical technology area and producing important
    benefits to the nation:
        Energy Efficiency.--The goal of the ATS program is to achieve fuel-
    to-electricity efficiencies of 60 percent or greater, resulting in
    significant reductions in fuel consumption.
        Lower electricity costs.--Fuel savings will, in turn, lower
    electricity costs, benefiting the competitiveness of U.S. industries in
    the world marketplace. The ATS program has had as its goal a 10 percent
    reduction in the cost of electricity produced relative to existing
    combined cycle power plants.
        Emissions reductions.--Natural gas fired gas turbines produce no
    particulates, ash, heavy metals, toxins, or sulfur oxides.
    Additionally, the ATS will achieve a significant reduction in emissions
    of oxides of nitrogen, and will further reduce carbon monoxide and
    hydrocarbon emissions relative to the current fossil fueled power
    generation base.
        Stimulating jobs retention and growth.--Tens of thousands of
    Americans already work to manufacture gas turbines and to provide key
    components. Manufacturing jobs in this industry already have been lost,
    and the remaining jobs are at risk because of stiff international
    competition. U.S. jobs depend on continued U.S. global leadership in
    turbine technology, which is supported by the ATS program.
                            the technical challenge
        Existing gas turbine technology benefited from the knowledge gained
    from years of national investments in military aircraft engine
    technologies. The need to meet high efficiency and low emissions
    requirements simultaneously for power generation systems in 2000 and
    beyond has necessitated the development of a steam--cooled turbine
    generation system--the first time that the industry has been called
    upon to develop a new technology specifically for power generation
    applications. Government has shared the risks inherent in meeting this
    technical challenge through the ATS program.
        GE's ``H System'' advanced turbine is an advanced combined-cycle
    system designed to break the 60 percent thermal-efficiency barrier
    while offering the lowest cost of electricity production with the
    lowest levels of emissions. Combined-cycle systems generate electricity
    from both a gas turbine and a steam turbine driven by steam generated
    from the gas turbine's exhaust. Where other gas turbines are air-
    cooled, ATS combined-cycle power blocks are based on a unique
    technology platform in which the gas turbine buckets and nozzles are
    steam-cooled by an integrated steam system. Steam cooling of the
    turbine airfoils enables higher turbine inlet temperatures to be
    achieved without increases in combustor exit temperatures, resulting in
    low levels of NOX and significant improvements in
    efficiency. Efficiency gains also translate directly into reduced
    emissions of greenhouse gases. The ATS will also be a fuel flexible
    system; because of its higher thermal efficiency and output, the ATS is
    expected to substantially advance the economic viability of coal gas
    (IGCC) systems.
                             the market opportunity
        Industry and government working together can take on more risk,
    confront bigger technical challenges and speed the development and
    application of technologies which ultimately will gain market
    acceptance and provide potentially large energy, economic,
    environmental and strategic returns to the nation. The ATS program
    offers a prime example of how government technology leadership is
    helping to assure that advanced, efficient technologies are available
    to meet market demand.
        Industry's R&D risk/reward window is often more focused on the
    short-term than government's, which can address broader, national
    priorities that may not yet be adequately valued in the marketplace.
    Despite the important benefits of ATS technology, because of the
    continuing technical risks, today the market alone is not sufficient to
    bring this technology to the point of commercial acceptance. The likely
    users of this technology in the U.S., both utilities and independent
    power producers, are not in a position today to make multi-hundred
    million dollar investments in technologies and systems that are not yet
    proven by actual, full-scale operation. Domestic electric industry
    restructuring makes potential investors in new technologies more risk
    averse. At the same time, the increasing pace of electric industry
    restructuring makes the need for advanced, competitive power generation
    technologies more urgent, and the completion of the ATS program more
    timely. According to the Energy Information Administration, 81 percent
    of new U.S. demand for electric generation will be met by gas turbines
    in 2010. The ATS program will assure the availability of more
    efficient, lower emission domestic technology to meet this demand.
        The same key enabling technologies being developed through the ATS
    program are required for both international and domestic applications.
    With the support of the ATS Program, U.S. manufacturers will be better
    able to compete in the projected international market in electricity
    generating systems--a marketplace in which foreign competitors
    frequently receive significant assistance from their governments.
    Successful completion of the ATS program will position U.S. technology
    for immediate introduction into global markets, and will enable U.S.
    technology to surpass leading foreign competitors, solidifying U.S.
    market share in the worldwide market. U.S. success in the export of
    power generation technologies translates directly into jobs in the
    United States.
                         ge ats program accomplishments
        GE's work during the initial phases of the ATS program focused on
    the technologies and component developments necessary for high
    temperature operation, and validation of the technically-innovative
    steam cooling concept. To date, GE has:
      --Completed full-scale, steam-cooled, first stage nozzle cascade
            design validation testing at ATS turbine design operating
            conditions. The first stage nozzles and buckets are the most
            critical high temperature components in the ATS. Testing
            included combustion system mapping, as well as nozzle
            aerodynamic, heat transfer, and low cycle fatigue validation.
      --Completed initial tests of the ``H'' series combustor design at the
            component level, and in a full-scale combustion test stand that
            permitted testing at full pressure, temperature, and flow
            design conditions. GE's design for the gas turbine combustion
            system permits its ATS to achieve high firing temperatures
            while minimizing oxides of nitrogen, a key objective of the ATS
            program.
      --Developed, with suppliers, single crystal casting technology to
            provide the high temperature strength required for the very
            large ATS machine turbine buckets and nozzles.
      --Completed tests of two builds of the \1/3\ scale H compressor,
            which allowed operation of the compressor over its entire
            speed/flow range, and validated the fundamental design of the
            compressor.
      --Completed tests of elements of the steam cooling system, in both
            component rigs and under utility field test conditions, along
            with design of a particulate filter which has been fully
            validated in testing at an operating combined cycle power plant
            to resolve concerns about the effects of impurities in the
            steam on the operation of the cooling system.
      --Developed manufacturing technologies essential for the success of
            the ATS, including extensive development in thermal barrier
            coatings (TBCs), which are critical to the steam cooling
            design. Performed separately-funded tests to validate the
            performance of TBCs in utility customers' current gas turbines
            under actual conditions. Designed a robot to assure proper
            application of TBCs. Improved the forging process to allow for
            production of the largest gas turbine Inconel wheels ever made.
      --Developed testing processes to permit product quality to be
            confirmed without necessitating destruction of expensive parts,
            including nondestructive inspection techniques for single
            crystal airfoil production, and new analytical tools to model
            the startup and shutdown of the gas turbine component of the
            combined cycle unit in greater detail than previously required.
                             recent accomplishments
        With fiscal year 1998 and 1999 funds, GE has continued development
    activity on its ATS engine, which remains on schedule for a full-speed,
    no-load demonstration test in December 1999, and has continued full-
    scale combustion system development, with test results meeting ATS
    design goals. The initial 9H (50 Hz) full-speed, no-load test was run
    in the second quarter of 1998 at GE's Greenville, SC, manufacturing
    facility. The testing validated rotor dynamics and vibration levels;
    compressor airfoil aeromechanics; compressor airflow and efficiency;
    scale-up effects from the compressor rig testing; compressor and
    turbine running clearances; and the Mark VI control system. GE also has
    initiated the 7H (60 Hz) ATS design and manufacturing programs, using
    information derived from the 9H component and full scale testing
    programs. It is anticipated that fiscal year 2000 funding will be used
    to continue testing of full scale components and sub-systems. The
    manufacturing capability for the first test engines will be completed,
    and full-speed, no-load testing of H series engines will continue,
    setting the stage for the completion of the program in the fourth
    quarter of calendar year 2000.
                                   conclusion
        Through R&D investments in programs like the ATS, the Federal
    government assists industry in taking on high risk, high payoff
    opportunities that challenge accepted technological limits. GE urges
    the Committee to continue to provide the resources necessary to
    complete the ATS program.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council
        These written comments are submitted on behalf of the members of
    Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC). The CURC is an ad hoc group
    of electric utilities, coal producers, equipment suppliers, architect,
    engineering and consulting firms, state government offices and
    universities interested in the utilization of coal in a cost-effective
    and environmentally acceptable manner.
                  introduction and summary of recommendations:
        These comments are derived from a strategic research and
    development (R&D) program--drafted and recommended by the CURC--for
    ensuring the utilization of our Nation's coal resources. The coal-based
    R&D program is described in a CURC technology ``roadmap'' by which R&D
    activities supported by the Department of Energy (DOE), as well as
    other private and government sectors, might be guided. (A copy of the
    roadmap is available upon request.)
        As the Congress considers the fiscal year 2000 budget request for
    the DOE's fossil energy program, it is requested that priority in
    funding be provided to those activities that directly further the R&D
    goals set forth in the roadmap. Consideration of future year programs
    and accompanying funding requirements should be guided by the roadmap
    as well.
        The CURC endorses the goals of DOE's Vision 21 program and supports
    the Department's efforts to establish programs in pursuit of those
    goals. In examining those goals, we have concluded that additional
    amounts of time--a minimum of five years--will be required to achieve
    the Vision 21 goals. Additional federal R&D funding might accelerate
    those development efforts. The CURC and DOE are actively engaged in
    collaborative discussions to develop consensus on implementation
    strategies and specific program content in order to achieve the Vision
    21 goals. The DOE has been very receptive in our mutual interests to
    insure that Vision 21 is consistent with CURC's technology roadmap.
        The DOE's coal R&D program should be structured and funded so as
    not to prematurely limit the number of technology options pursued.
    Because the future practical, economic and environmental viability of
    technologies cannot be assured today, the CURC recommends DOE pursue an
    aggressive, collaborative R&D program, focusing increased funding on a
    portfolio of technology options, as outlined in the roadmap, to
    increase the probability of success of DOE's overall investment.
    Emphasis on the need to sequester CO2 and to develop
    technology solutions to address the risks of anthropogenic climate
    change is but one basis upon which to build technology options. Other
    important reasons to pursue a variety of options include the
    recognition that coal is among our most cost-effective fuels used to
    produce electricity. We will use coal well into the future to generate
    electricity-only from central station powerplants. We should also
    recognize the need to pursue development of highly efficient advanced
    coal combustion systems for use in domestic or overseas applications.
    These systems will achieve CO2 reductions, or avoidance,
    through greatly improved conversion efficiency.
        The CURC also recognizes that the Offices of Fossil Energy and
    Energy Efficiency are each engaged in R&D that could benefit coal use.
    To ensure that government and industry resources are targeted
    effectively and managed coherently, the CURC encourages the DOE to
    ensure that programs supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency are
    managed in consultation with and supportive of the mission of Fossil
    Energy.
        The CURC makes the following specific recommendations with respect
    to the DOE's fiscal year 2000 budget request:
        1. The CURC advocates priority funding in R&D support for high-
    efficiency coal-based generation technologies, including integrated
    gasification combined cycle, pressurized fluid bed combustion (PFBC),
    and fuel cells based on syngas. By focusing on technologies such as
    these with the potential for the highest efficiency, the nation can
    capture the greatest possible reductions in CO2 emissions
    (and the smallest requirement for sequestration) while maintaining the
    ability to use its strategically important coal resource.
        As a general observation, the DOE's research program should focus
    on the following areas in which breakthroughs in performance and cost
    are achievable: In particular, near-term, high risk technologies which
    have significant increased performance or reduced cost potential; and
    longer-term, high risk technologies that might achieve significant
    efficiency improvements and cost reductions. As the CURC roadmap
    suggests, emphasis upon incremental improvements in the current state
    of the art should be secondary unless such improvements are part of the
    critical technology path for the advanced technologies identified in
    the roadmap.
        2. The CURC suggests that DOE insure coordinated attention is given
    to the technology needs for advancing the use of supercritical boilers,
    PFBC and other advanced coal combustion systems. In particular, it
    appears that DOE-supported work on steel alloys, ceramics and other
    materials needed to operate in high temperature, high pressure and
    changing combustion chemistry regimes should be better focused upon the
    needs of the electric power generation industry. The DOE-supported work
    on advanced materials should be specifically directed towards large
    power generation applications, particularly with reference to boilers,
    turbines and heaters, with special attention being given to the
    materials research needs for gasification, PFBCs and fuel cells.
    Industry's aim is to improve cost-competitiveness, efficiency and
    reliability.
        3. In addition, it has become increasingly clear over the last
    several months that countries like China and India have developed a
    renewed interest in advanced supercritical units and other advanced
    coal combustion systems, including PFBCs. The U.S. possesses a
    technology know-how advantage in this area and every effort should be
    made to assure that these more advanced technologies are made available
    to developing country markets. To this end, the CURC suggests that the
    DOE host a workshop to which a large cross section of industry,
    academia and the national laboratories should be invited. At this
    workshop, the technology requirements and opportunities offered by
    advanced pulverized coal systems need to be explained and explored.
    Workshop attendees should be invited to make recommendations to the DOE
    regarding various technology needs for these advanced direct combustion
    systems.
        4. With respect to the proposed Vision 21 program, the CURC is
    aware that the DOE has under consideration a proposed set of activities
    based upon the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request as well as
    an additional set of activities that may need to be undertaken at a
    later point in time as funds are made available. If certain activities
    on the critical path of a technology's development are delayed, that
    critical path item could easily prohibit a technology from being
    considered for use or application when the market requires new or
    replacement power generation. In particular, it is important to
    determine that certain postponed or delayed activities will not
    adversely impact the timely development of hardware or know-how that
    may be key to success of a particular technology. It is imperative not
    to foreclose any promising clean coal technology options in the short
    term that are consistent with the Vision 21 program and CURC's
    technology roadmap.
        5. The CURC continues its support for technology development that
    will permit the cost-effective conversion of coal to cleaner fuels and
    chemical feedstocks. Successful technology development will permit the
    use of one of the world's most abundant fossil fuels in a manner that
    could provide useful products from coal to regions of the world that
    are in need of clean fuels and chemical feedstocks for industrial
    growth. In this regard, the CURC suggests increased investment in the
    Indirect Liquefaction program. Given the long-term importance of
    developing technologies to convert coal to other useful forms of energy
    and chemical feedstocks, increased funding in the Indirect Liquefaction
    program would be justified. Such additional funds should be targeted to
    developing two or three alternative co-production technologies that can
    be readied for possible commercialization by 2010. Specific areas for
    investment include basic research in catalysis and process research,
    reactor modeling, and scale-up and fuels testing.
                                   background
        U.S. economic growth and worldwide sustainable development depend
    upon the availability of plentiful and relatively low cost supplies of
    energy and industrial feedstocks. Stable, affordable energy supplies
    can be best achieved and maintained if the marketplace has a variety of
    reasonable options from which to choose. A fuel-diversified economy
    provides a balanced approach to energy and the environment and
    practical, cost-effective protection against supply disruptions and
    price spikes resulting from domestic infrastructure problems or
    international crises.
        Coal is a critical component of the global energy portfolio and a
    cornerstone of U.S. energy and economic strength. Further, coal likely
    will play a growing role in the transportation and industrial sectors
    as technological advances make it economically possible to convert coal
    into high-grade, low polluting fuels and chemical feedstocks. Given
    these factors, coal is projected to remain vitally important to the
    global economy. Technology is the key to assuring that expanding coal
    use throughout the world can be achieved economically and with only a
    minimal impact upon the environment.
        Government and industry must work together to support an
    appropriate balance of short and long-term activities required to
    develop and commercialize technology which will permit the economic,
    efficient and environmentally compatible use of coal.
    development of a coal-based technology roadmap to insure the continued
                                  use of coal
        The CURC has developed a coal-related set of technology roadmaps
    for continued funding of research to preserve the coal-based option in
    the United States. The objective of this industry-led collaboration has
    been to determine which technologies would be needed to maintain the
    viability of coal as a contributor to the U.S. energy generation
    portfolio as well as to the transportation and chemical feedstock
    sectors of our economy.
        CURC identified the following as examples of the types of
    technologies that need to be developed for coal to maintain an
    important role in supplying energy in the future:
        For advanced pressurized fluidized bed combustion designs, meeting
    these performance targets will require improvements in hot gas cleanup,
    in improved high-temperature gas turbines and associated combustors,
    and in the creation of higher efficiency steam cycles.
        For advance integrated gasification combined cycle, improvements
    will be needed in gas cleanup and turbine performance. Also,
    development will be needed on new turbines that eliminate the need for
    the steam cycle and on reducing the cost and improving the performance
    of air separation systems.
        Fuel cell development can greatly improve the performance of
    gasification approaches and while approaches based on the combustion of
    a solid fuel alone do not appear capable of meeting CURC-established
    performance targets for the year 2020, a fuel cell, gasification system
    could achieve significant environmental performance over standard,
    conventional pulverized coal units and thus be tremendously useful in
    applications abroad (e.g., India and China).
                                   conclusion
        In the next century, for coal to remain a competitive source of
    energy for power generation and become a viable source of
    transportation fuels or chemical feedstocks, targeted and sustained R&D
    is essential. If technology is the key to coal's competitiveness, then
    coal research and development is the key to available technology.
    Technology that enables cost-competitive use of coal while assuring
    compliance with environmental standards will assure a maintenance of
    low cost power for the economy.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of James D. Mosman, Chief Executive Officer, State
                Teachers' Retirement System, State of California
        Congress Should Appropriate the Funds Necessary to Fulfill the
    Federal Government's Settlement Obligation to Provide Compensation for
    the State of California's Interest in the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
    Reserve
                                    summary
        Acting pursuant to Congressional mandate, and in order to maximize
    the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills
    Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of
    California's claims, the Administration reached a settlement with the
    State in advance of the sale. The State waived its rights to the
    Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched out
    over an extended period of time.
        Following the settlement, the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve went
    forward without the cloud of the State's claims and produced a winning
    bid of $3.65 billion, far beyond most expectations. Last year, Congress
    appropriated the $36 million necessary to satisfy the Federal
    Government's obligation to make the first annual installment payment of
    compensation due in fiscal year 1999 to the State for its interest in
    the Elk Hills Reserve.
        The President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes a request for an
    appropriation of the $36 million necessary to make the second annual
    installment of compensation due to the State under the settlement
    agreement. Congress should appropriate the $36 million to fulfill the
    Federal Government's obligation to make the second installment payment
    of compensation due under the settlement that Congress directed the
    Administration to achieve.
                                   background
        Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
    westward were granted by Congress certain sections of public land
    located within the State's borders. This was done to compensate these
    States having large amounts of public lands within their borders for
    revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands as well as to
    support public education.
        Two of the tracts of State school lands granted by Congress to
    California at the time of its admission to the Union were located in
    what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve.
        The State of California applies the revenues from its State school
    lands to assist retired teachers whose pensions have been most
    seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for
    Social Security and often must rely on this State pension as the
    principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving
    these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years
    old whose relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more
    of their original value to inflation.
              congressional direction to settle the state's claims
        In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to
    private industry, Congress reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds
    in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims
    to the State school lands located in the Reserve.
        In addition, in the Act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy
    on behalf of the Federal Government to ``offer to settle all claims of
    the State of California . . . in order to provide proper compensation
    for the State's claims.'' (Public Law 104-106, Sec.  3415). The
    Secretary was required by Congress to ``base the amount of the offered
    settlement payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the
    State's claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount
    reserved in the contingent fund.'' (Id.)
                 settlement reached that is fair to both sides
        Over the course of the year that followed enactment of the Defense
    Authorization Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Administration
    and the State engaged in vigorous and extended negotiations over a
    possible settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement was
    reached, and a written Settlement Agreement was entered into between
    the United States and the State, signed by the Secretary of Energy and
    the Governor of California.
        The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper
    compensation to the State and its teachers for their State school lands
    and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues
    realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State's
    claims in advance of the sale.
    Federal revenues maximized by removing cloud of state's claim in
            advance of the sale
        The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the
    purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private
    purchasers, thereby removing the cloud over title being offered to the
    purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise
    interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser's exposure to
    treble damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State
    waived equitable claims to revenues from production for periods prior
    to the sale.
        The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.65 billion
    in cash, a sales price that substantially exceeded earlier estimates.
    Proper compensation for the state's claims as congress directed
        In exchange for the State's waiver of rights to Elk Hills to permit
    the sale to proceed, the Settlement Agreement provides the State and
    its teachers with proper compensation for the fair value of the State's
    claims, as Congress had directed in the Defense Authorization Act.
        While the Federal Government received the Elk Hills sales proceeds
    in a cash lump sum at closing of the sale in February, 1998, the State
    agreed to accept compensation in installments stretched out over an
    extended period of 7 years without interest. This represented a
    substantial concession by the State. Congress had reserved 9 percent of
    sales proceeds for compensating the State. The State school lands'
    share had been estimated by the Federal Government to constitute 8.2 to
    9.2 percent of the total value of the Reserve. By comparison, the
    present value of the stretched out compensation payments to the State
    has been determined by the Federal Government to represent only 6.4
    percent of the sales proceeds, since the State agreed to defer receipt
    of the compensation over a 7-year period and will receive no interest
    on the deferred payments.
        Accordingly, under the Settlement Agreement the Federal Government
    is obligated to pay to the State as compensation, subject to an
    appropriation, annual installments of $36 million in each of the first
    5 years (FY 1999-2003) and the balance of the amount due split evenly
    between years 6 and 7 (FY 2004-2005). The State's compensation will be
    adjusted to reflect the Federal Government's final share of revenues
    once the determination of equity interests with the Federal
    Government's co-owner Chevron is finally made.
                      the money is there to pay the state
        The funds necessary to compensate the State have been collected
    from the sales proceeds remitted by the private purchaser of Elk Hills
    and are now being held in escrow for the express purpose of
    compensating the State.
    the president has requested an appropriation of $36 million to fulfill
     the federal government's obligation to pay the second installment of
                compensation due under the settlement agreement
        In the Administration's Budget for fiscal year 2000, the President
    has requested an appropriation of $36 million to fund the second
    installment of compensation due to the State under the Settlement
    Agreement.
      congress should appropriate the funds due under the settlement that
                congress directed the administration to achieve
        Congress should appropriate the $36 million requested by the
    Administration for fiscal year 2000 from the special Elk Hills
    compensation fund to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to
    make the second installment payment of compensation due under the
    settlement that Congress directed the Administration to achieve.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Donald L. Klass, President, Biomass Energy
                              Research Association
        This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2000 (FY00) request for
    appropriations by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for the mission-oriented
    Agriculture Vision under the Industries of the Future (Specific)
    program within the Energy Conservation budget. This portion of DOE's
    request deals with research, development, and deployment (RD&D) for the
    production of chemicals from biomass feedstocks. The program is carried
    out by EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT).
        Specifically, BERA recommends that $10 million be appropriated for
    the Agriculture Vision program in FY00. The high priority activities
    and the dollar allocations recommended for each activity by BERA in
    FY00 are:
      --In-depth assessments of biomass feedstock production and needs for
            the Agriculture Vision in collaboration with the U.S.
            Department of Agriculture (USDA), and with independent
            contractors if needed. $1,000,000.
      --Finalization and clear definition of the structure of the
            Agriculture Vision and the critical pathway that meets the
            overall objective of the program. $1,000,000.
      --Selection and initiation of the mission-oriented projects that have
            the highest probability of contributing to the overall program
            objective. $8,000,000.
      --Internal coordination and joint management of all DOE biomass
            programs at DOE.
        The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) is a non-profit
    association in Washington, DC, founded in 1982 by researchers and
    private organizations that conduct biomass research. Our objectives are
    to promote education and research on the conversion of renewable virgin
    and waste biomass to energy, fuels, and chemicals that can be
    economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a source of
    information on biomass policies and programs.
        I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of BERA's
    members for the opportunity to present the position of BERA's Board of
    Directors on the federal funding of the Agriculture Vision. Continued
    support of this program is essential to provide the stimulus to develop
    environmentally clean, indigenous resources that can displace fossil
    feedstocks and fuels, stimulate regional and national economic
    development and employment, reduce our dependence on imported oil, and
    help to reduce adverse climate and environmental changes.
                                   background
        I have examined several reports on the Agriculture Vision program
    and the information presented by DOE in the request for appropriations.
    The overall goal of the Agriculture Vision is to develop the
    technologies necessary to displace 10 percent of the U.S. market for
    industrial chemical feedstocks with biomass for the production of
    organic commodity chemicals and chemical products by the year 2020.
        Two million dollars were appropriated in the Interior and Related
    Agencies Bill in fiscal year 1999 to start this program, and $4 million
    are requested by DOE for its continuation in fiscal year 2000. The
    ``roadmap'' developed by OIT's Executive Steering Group (A Technology
    Roadmap for Plant/Crop-Based Renewable Resources 2020, February 1999)
    is expected to identify the major barriers to progress and to
    prioritize research areas. The selection of competitively awarded
    research contracts is in progress.
                                brief commentary
        The BERA Board believes that this program is very worthwhile.
    Successful implementation of the Agriculture Vision is expected to
    result in many regional and national benefits. Virtually all basic
    organic chemicals--including petroleum-and natural gas-derived
    chemicals and plastics--can be manufactured from biomass feedstocks.
    Utilization of agricultural and forest lands for production of
    renewable fossil feedstock substitutes will significantly improve
    economic growth and the environment. New markets will be opened for
    farmers and foresters, rural development and employment will increase,
    about 80 cents of every dollar spent on biomass in a given region will
    stay in that region, and biomass feedstock usage will help reduce
    federal farm subsidy payments and trade deficits. The use of biomass
    feedstocks will also help to reduce atmospheric pollutants such as
    sulfur oxides and unburned hydrocarbons that are emitted by
    conventional manufacturing plants.
                                recommendations
        The total fossil feedstock converted to organic chemicals in the
    United States today, in terms of barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), is
    roughly 1.26 million BOE/day. Ten percent of this value is 126,000 BOE/
    day, while the corresponding process energy consumption is about
    136,000 BOE/day. BERA therefore recommends that the overall goal of the
    Agriculture Vision program be expanded to include the use of biomass
    energy, biofuels, and other renewable energy resources for process
    energy. In addition, reductions in process energy consumption through
    higher efficiency unit operations and process energy conservation
    should be part of this goal.
        The potential amounts of fossil feedstock and process energy
    displaced by biomass feedstock and biomass energy and biofuels should
    be estimated for each technology contract considered for the
    Agriculture Vision program before an award is made. This is essential
    to predict how large a contribution can be made by a given project
    toward achievement of the overall program goal, presuming the project
    is successfully completed and the technology is implemented by
    industry. This assessment, along with preliminary economic analyses,
    when applied to development of the Agriculture Vision, will help ensure
    the success of the program.
        In-depth assessments of the availability, logistics, chemical and
    physical properties, growth requirements and characteristics, and
    competitive uses and economics of existing biomass resources, including
    specific biomass species and agricultural residues, are required to
    properly structure the Agriculture Vision program and to select optimum
    biomass feedstocks. These assessments should include the energy and
    feedstock potential of new additions to biomass feedstock ``reserves.''
    Note that the maximum economic transport distance of biomass to
    processing plants for conversion is about 50 to 75 miles. Note also
    that a one-quad block (489,000 BOE/day) of biomass energy (gross)
    produced by hypothetical biomass plantations, exclusive of the energy
    inputs needed for planting, growing, harvesting, and transporting the
    feedstock to the conversion plant gate, and converting it to organic
    commodity chemicals, requires about 10,000 square miles of biomass
    growth area, the equivalent of a square 100 miles on each edge. This
    assumes average biomass yields of 10 dry ton per acre per year, a yield
    level that is generally on the optimistic side in moderate climates.
    The in-depth assessments must therefore be concerned with the
    parameters outlined here and the design and net energy production
    efficiencies of integrated biomass feedstock production-transport-
    conversion systems. DOE's EERE and its predecessor groups in DOE, the
    USDA, and others have performed such assessments. The results of this
    work should be incorporated into the assessment of the Agriculture
    Vision.
        In BERA's separate statement in support of EERE's mission-oriented
    biomass energy and fuels programs funded under the Energy and Water
    Bill, it is emphasized that all of DOE's biomass-related projects
    should be internally coordinated by joint management at DOE
    Headquarters. This includes EERE's power, transportation fuels, and
    biomass-related hydrogen programs, the basic academic biomass research
    program funded by DOE's Office of Science (formerly the Office of
    Energy Research), the biomass-related portion of OIT's Chemical
    Technology Vision 2020 program, and OIT's Agriculture Vision program.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Maj. Gen. Scott B. Smith (U.S. Army Ret.), Chief
                 Executive Officer, Western Research Institute
        On behalf of Western Research Institute (WRI), I request that the
    following statement be submitted as part of the record of proceedings
    for the Subcommittee's considerations of the Department of Energy's
    fiscal year 2000 fossil energy research and development budget request.
    The Cooperative Agreement Program represents a successful collaborative
    partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy, industry and WRI and
    has consistently and repeatedly met and exceeded the goals placed upon
    it by the Congress. Technologies developed at WRI during the past eight
    years will add measurably to the nation's energy reserves while
    providing a cleaner, healthier and safer environment. For the reasons
    explained below, we strongly urge that the Cooperative Agreement
    Program be supported at an annual level of $7.7 million, split evenly
    between Western Research Institute and the Energy and Environmental
    Research Center at the University of North Dakota.
       successful leveraging of federal funding with private cost sharing
        The Jointly Sponsored Research (JSR) Program emphasizes technology
    commercialization and continues to be successful and supported
    enthusiastically by WRI's industrial clientele. Since entering into a
    new JSR cooperative agreement with the Department of Energy on March
    26, 1993, WRI has put in place projects utilizing a total of
    $15,166,860 in USDOE funds. These funds have been combined with
    $21,047,823 in industrial funds to produce a $36,214,683 program. The
    use of fiscal year 1999 funds will produce a program valued at or above
    $40 million while using less than $18 million in USDOE funds.
        While it is always desirable to acquire an asset worth more than
    $35 million for a price of less than $16 million, these numbers
    substantially understate the true value of the program. What price does
    one put on the value of new technology that improves regional economies
    and enhances our quality of life?
        As this report illustrates, the technology developed during the
    past four years makes accessible billions of dollars of increased or
    enhanced energy reserves, as well as offers the possibility of a
    cleaner, healthier and safer environment. This means a safer and more
    secure energy and environmental future for us, our families and for
    future generations.
                       technology meeting national needs
        The Cooperative Agreement Program emphasizes technology
    commercialization consistent with the USDOE's mission to enhance the
    nation's energy security through increased efficiencies in exploration,
    production and utilization with minimal or no adverse environmental
    consequences. Technologies emerging from the program are consistent
    with this goal and include:
                             clean fuels from coal
        Thermo Ecotek announced in August 1995 the signing of an agreement
    to construct a 500,000 ton per year coal upgrading plant in the Powder
    River Basin of Wyoming. The plant cost $42 million and uses the
    Koppelman Series C Process. This process was successfully demonstrated
    by WRI and KFx Inc. in early 1994 using a pilot plant funded by
    matching funds from the USDOE JSR Program. WRI is presently working
    with KFx Inc. on projects to increase the throughput and reduce the
    cost of second generation plants that will use the improved version of
    the Koppelman Series C Process and to test foreign coals as feedstocks
    for the process.
          reduced environmental impact associated with oil production
        Tank bottom wastes from petroleum production are estimated to
    exceed 27,000,000 barrels in the U.S. alone with an accumulation rate
    of 2,800,000 barrels per year. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    (RCRA) regulations currently allow storage in permitted pits or tanks,
    but fewer and fewer permits are being approved. WRI developed and
    patented (US Patent No. 5,259,945) the Tank Bottom Recovery and
    Remediation (TaBoRR) process to address this problem. The method
    results in separation of water, a light hydrocarbon stream, a heavy
    hydrocarbon stream, and an inert, non-leaching, liquid-free solid. The
    process is currently undergoing testing in a 300-barrel-per-day process
    development unit, and negotiations are under way with a number of
    domestic and international companies for extended testing and
    deployment within operating fields.
                 remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated sites
        Thousands of sites in the US have subsurface hydrocarbon
    contamination, and many are contaminated with heavy oils. WRI developed
    the CROW process to mitigate such sites. JSR funding has supported
    field demonstrations of the technology at the Bell Lumber site in New
    Brighton, Minnesota, and the Pennsylvania Power and Light site in
    Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Installation and shakedown of all field
    equipment at both sites are complete. The PPL system has been fully
    operational for more than two years and has produced more than 42,000
    gallons of recovered oil. The owner estimates that the CROW process has
    reduced the cost of remediation by more than $1.3 million.
                        improved environmental monitors
        The determination or screening of environmental contaminants in the
    field using portable analytical methodologies or downhole real-time
    measurements is an area of great interest in the environmental
    industry. The TROLL (SP4000), which became commercially available in
    fiscal year 1996, is a fully submersible intelligent probe designed for
    monitoring water level and temperature. Using Windows-based software,
    the TROLL can be easily programmed in the office, car or field and
    connected either to a PC, which is used for programming and receiving
    stored data, or to other units via separately supplied wiring or
    telemetry.
                          increased health and safety
        PEAC is a hand-held computer system that provides first responders
    with fast, easy-to-use information for chemical spills and emergencies.
    The size of an emergency response area often dictates how limited
    resources are allocated. Evacuation distances vary greatly with spill
    and weather conditions. PEAC gives emergency responders the ability to
    determine protective action distances using actual conditions, which is
    crucial to resource allocation. Commercial PEAC units are being
    produced and sold. Discussions are ongoing regarding possible spin-offs
    of the technology and its possible modification to include chemical
    warfare agents.
     solving energy and environmental problems to improve our economy and
                          enhance our quality of life
        Each of the five technologies brought to commercialization with the
    funds provided by the Cooperative Agreement Program contributes to the
    overall goals of the U.S. Department of Energy and the Nation. Each has
    broad applicability both within the United States and abroad, thereby
    helping to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. and western energy
    technologies in international markets and assisting in technology
    transfer. The Koppelman Series C Process is expected to generate
    markets for as much as 20 millions tons annually of low-sulfur coal and
    contribute substantially to the goal of increased production of U.S.
    energy resources and reducing the Nation's dependence on foreign energy
    supplies. The TaBoRR technology helps to minimize the impact of energy
    production and utilization on the environment while simultaneously
    recovering an estimated ten million barrels of usable oil. This
    technology is joined by the TROLL smart probe, CROW and PEAC
    technologies, all of which contribute measurably and substantially to a
    cleaner, healthier and safer environment. The total funding to bring
    these technologies to this stage of development was more than $35
    million, with the government's share of this being less than $16
    million. We certainly feel that these funds were well spent in solving
    energy and environmental problems to improve our economy and enhance
    our quality of life.
        In a high-technology global economy, technology development is
    crucial to the preservation and growth of the American economy and
    standard of living. Much of this technology and growth will come from
    companies that were small or nonexistent just a decade earlier. These
    emerging companies must rely on creative and innovative organizations
    such as Western Research Institute to assist them with their process
    and product development activities. It is a tribute to the wisdom and
    the foresight of the United States Department of Energy and the
    Congress that activities such as the Cooperative Agreement Programs
    exist to meet these crucial national needs.
        As we enter the second year of our present Cooperative Agreements,
    we have a sense of pride and accomplishment regarding what has been
    achieved during the program. We hope that as you read the enclosed
    materials you share our pride and spirit of accomplishment. Certainly,
    much has been done and done well. Technologies developed at WRI will
    add measurably to the nation's energy reserves, while providing a
    cleaner, healthier and safer environment. Yet much still remains to be
    done. Increasingly, the demonstration and commercialization of
    technology requires strong, coordinated and focused activities, often
    spanning several years. Accordingly, we find our industrial partners
    requiring multi-year commitments of time and funding. In turn, if
    meaningful projects are to be undertaken and technologies
    commercialized, there must be some assurance of long-term and
    dependable support. Ensuring that this support is available and put to
    good use in fueling our domestic economy is the challenge facing us
    all. We at Western Research Institute look forward to working with
    members of Congress to accomplish this extremely important and
    necessary task.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Gary A. Styles, Manager, Planning and Analysis
      Power Systems Development Facility, Southern Company Services, Inc.
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: This statement of
    Southern Company Services, Inc., (SCS) is in support of $20 million for
    the Wilsonville Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in the
    Advanced Clean and Efficient Power Systems Program in the U.S.
    Department of Energy (DOE) Fossil Energy R&D program for FY'2000.
    Specifically, the request is for $12 million in the high efficiency--
    integrated gasification combined cycle (DOE Key 7) activities and $8
    million in the high efficiency--pressurized fluidized bed (DOE Key 6)
    combustion activities. This request is a $0.670 million increase above
    the Administration's FY'2000 budget request for these two activities.
    However, the $20 million total request is consistent with prior PSDF
    budget projections and SCS's negotiations with DOE.
        Southern Company, through SCS and its operating companies, supports
    and conducts research that will help the nation utilize its abundant
    coal resources while minimizing its environmental effects. As a result,
    SCS has participated in projects in both DOE Clean Coal Technology
    (CCT) program and the DOE Fossil Energy Research and Development
    program.
        The purpose of this testimony is thank this subcommittee for its
    past support for the PSDF and to request continued support for the PSDF
    for advanced coal gasification and pressurized combustion research.
                    objectives of the psdf research program
        The objectives of the PSDF research program, in conjunction with
    other DOE research projects and programs, are to reduce technical risk,
    improve environmental performance (including a 25 percent reduction in
    CO2 emissions), and reduce the cost of producing electricity
    from coal, our nation's most abundant fossil fuel resource. For many
    reasons, natural gas fired combustion turbines and combined cycle power
    plants are currently the most cost-effective electric power generating
    technologies in many areas of the United States. Natural gas fired
    power plants are projected to capture over 50 percent of new electric
    generation capacity over the next 10 to 15 years. This rapid expansion
    of usage will result in upward pressure on the price of natural gas.
    Also, many may remember that less than 15 years ago, electric utilities
    were prohibited by federal law from burning natural gas to produce
    electricity due to shortages of natural gas and its importance to
    domestic heating. During the current period of energy stability, we
    must not, as a nation, become complacent as we may face another energy
    crisis in the future. Our nation needs competitive, cost effective,
    clean, and efficient coal-based technologies to meet our future
    electric energy needs.
        The fundamental purpose of the PSDF is to support the national
    program to assure competition between energy resources and, thereby,
    keep electricity prices low. By identifying and resolving important
    technology integration issues at the PSDF, the reliability of first-of-
    a-kind plants can be significantly improved prior to commercial
    applications.
        The Wilsonville PSDF is the only facility in the world where all
    the components of an advanced coal-fired power plant can be tested in
    an integrated system at a practical engineering scale prior to assuming
    the risk and cost of commercial applications. It has already provided
    vital support information to two CCT projects (Pinon Pine in Nevada and
    City of Lakeland in Florida) which should increase the likelihood of
    the success of these projects. The PSDF and other DOE fossil energy
    programs will allow U.S. electric utilities to maintain reasonable
    domestic energy prices and U.S. equipment suppliers to gain a
    technological advantage in electric power production that help increase
    competitiveness in foreign electricity markets. Maintaining low-cost
    electricity also helps constrain inflation and increase the
    competitiveness of U.S. goods.
        The PSDF will also play a key role in DOE's ``Vision 21'' program.
    Technology modules developed in the Vision 21 program, such as high-
    temperature ceramic membrane air separation, can be tested in the
    integrated power generation system at PSDF prior to scale-up to
    commercial size.
        Coal currently accounts for over 90 percent of the U.S. combined
    energy reserves and supplies over 56 percent of the energy for electric
    power generation. Coal is still our nation's lowest cost fossil fuel.
    However, for coal to remain competitive, we must reduce the capital
    cost of new coal fired power plants by at least 20 percent while
    simultaneously increasing efficiency and improving environmental
    performance. Recent economic studies completed by the Electric Power
    Research Institute (EPRI), DOE, and SCS show that if advanced coal
    research projects and programs are successful, the capital cost for
    these plants can be reduced to less than $900/kWe. Based on the Energy
    Information Administration's (EIA) latest fuel cost estimates, coal can
    regain its competitive advantage by as early as 2007 if the $900/kWe
    capital cost is achieved.
        To accomplish these objectives, we must improve the reliability of
    individual plant components and optimize system integration and
    performance. Research to help these objectives can be accomplished most
    cost effectively at the PSDF. The PSDF is designed to be the U.S test
    facility to support the Clean Coal Technology program and advanced
    coal-based power generation development for the next five to 15 years.
       accomplishments of the psdf project during the first 30 months of
                                   operation
        Some of the PSDF project's most significant accomplishments through
    the end of 1998 include:
      --construction of the Kellogg, Brown and Root transport reactor train
            was completed in May 1996 and the first coal fire in the
            combustion mode began in August, 1996.
      --completed construction of the Foster Wheeler circulating PFBC
            system in March 1998.
      --over 5,300 hours of fluid mechanical testing for the transport
            reactor have been successfully completed including over 4,000
            hours of operation on coal.
      --99.95 percent combustion efficiency at relatively low operating
            temperatures.
      --over 99 percent sulfur removal with low limestone use.
      --insignificant erosion of refractory and pipes.
      --over 4,000 hours of testing and life assessment of high-
            temperature, high-pressure filter elements including over 3,000
            hours at full operating temperature.
      --demonstrated easy startup and operation of the transport reactor.
            Most early operating problems have been due to coal feed and
            ash letdown systems but these have been essentially eliminated.
      --developed theoretical and practical solutions to the fluid
            mechanics of the transport reactor system that will benefit
            future power plant designs and current fluid-bed cracking
            technology in the petroleum industry.
      --transferred operating experiences to the Pinon Pine CCT project.
      --completed initial commissioning and startup of the advanced low
            NOX burner and combustion turbine system for the
            Foster Wheeler train. Results have lead to better understanding
            and redesign of this City of Lakeland burner.
                                  future plans
        In 1999, the transport reactor will be operated in both the
    combustion and gasification modes and tests on improved particulate
    control devices will continue. Testing and development of improved
    solids feed and handling systems will also continue. Continued
    operation of the Foster Wheeler train is scheduled to begin in the
    second quarter of 1999 after return of the redesigned burner.
               description of power systems development facility
        The Wilsonville PSDF is a joint industry/DOE facility for
    engineering-scale testing and development of devices to remove
    particulates and other contaminants from hot gas in high-efficiency
    coal gasification and pressurized fluidized-bed combustion power
    plants. SCS and our industrial partners are supplying over $40 million
    in cost sharing to the PSDF project. The industrial partners, which
    represent a major portion of domestic electric power generation, power
    generation design and manufacturing, construction, and coal mining
    include: Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., Peabody Coal Company, Foster
    Wheeler Corporation, Southern Company, Rolls-Royce Allison, Southern
    Research Institute, Siemens-Westinghouse, Combustion Power Corporation,
    and the Electric Power Research Institute. Three of the industrial
    partners, Foster Wheeler, Kellogg, Brown & Root, and Siemens-
    Westinghouse are also actively involved in CCT demonstration projects
    (Pinon Pine and City of Lakeland) that will enhance commercialization
    opportunities for technologies being developed at the PSDF. Southern
    Company, and its industrial partners in the PSDF, have financial
    incentives to see that technologies successfully developed at
    Wilsonville and other sites are effectively implemented in the market
    place.
        In addition to the Wilsonville, Alabama plant site, components for
    the facility are being developed at the following locations: Grand
    Forks, North Dakota (gasifier testing), Houston, Texas (gasifier
    development); Indianapolis, Indiana (combustion turbine development);
    Livingston, New Jersey (combustor development and testing); Menlo Park,
    California (filter fabrication); Orlando, Florida (gas turbine low-
    NOX burner), and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (filter
    fabrication).
        To use new high-performance gas turbines in coal-based power
    plants, high-temperature, high-pressure gas cleanup must be perfected.
    When fully developed, these technologies will:
      --improve the efficiency of power generation from coal by over 25
            percent compared to pulverized-coal power plants.
      --CO2 emissions will be reduced by 25 percent as a result
            of the increased efficiency.
      --lower the cost of electricity by over 20 percent;
      --be more acceptable to coal-based utilities than today's oxygen-
            blown coal-gasification combined-cycle designs; and
      --reduce pollutants by over 95 percent.
        The PSDF is the focal point for much of America's advanced electric
    power generation technology development and will continue to supply
    important technology into the twenty-first century. The PSDF currently
    contains four modules:
      --an advanced pressurized fluidized-bed combustor (``PFBC''), an
            extremely clean method for burning coal;
      --a transport reactor gas source, an advanced type of coal gasifier
            and pressurized combustor;
      --a hot gas cleanup module to test filters for removing fine
            particles and other contaminates from coal-derived gases;
      --an advanced low-NOX burner-gas turbine module
        A fifth module, an advanced fuel cell, may be added to the project
    at a later date.
        At the PSDF, private developers are able to test innovative
    electric power system components--new combustors, improved cleanup
    systems, and advanced turbines and fuel cells--at a central location,
    saving the time and expense of building separate test facilities.
        The Wilsonville PSDF offers a number of advantages to the utility
    industry and to the nation by being able to address issues for the
    near-(five years), middle-(ten years), and long-term (fifteen years)
    management of technology risk:
      --The testing of hot gas cleanup systems addresses near-term
            developmental needs, and the schedule of the PSDF is geared
            towards providing support to CCT projects for advanced power
            generation as these projects enter the design and operational
            phases.
      --The advanced pressurized combustion process offers the potential of
            a high-efficiency system for the mid-term that may be widely
            used in repowering applications or in greenfield plants.
      --The transport gasifier/combustor has significant commercial
            potential due to its compact size and resulting lower capital
            cost.
      --The integrated gasification/fuel cell concept is a system that has
            the potential to become the most efficient and environmentally
            superior coal-based system available over the long-term.
                                   conclusion
        The United States has always been a leader in energy research.
    Current DOE fossil energy research and development programs for coal
    will assure that a wide range of technology options continues to be
    available for future needs. We recognize the difficult choices that
    confront Congress when it examines the near-term effects of research
    programs on the Federal budget. We believe, however, that supporting
    advanced coal-based energy research today, in programs like the PSDF,
    will be a net plus for the economy, the federal government, and the
    American people in the future. For the foregoing reasons, SCS requests
    your continued support for the Power Systems Development Facility by
    including $20 million in funding in the Department of Energy's Fossil
    Energy Budget.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Andrew G. Sharkey, III, President and CEO; and
      Lawrence W. Kavanagh, Vice President, Manufacturing and Technology,
                       American Iron and Steel Institute
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to contribute to the Subcommittee's hearing record again
    this year and to deliver the support of the American Iron and Steel
    Institute for continued funding of steel-related collaborative research
    programs. In previous years, these have been conducted under the
    auspices of the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) of the U.S.
    Department of Energy (DOE). In 1998, we began working with the Office
    of Building Technology (OBT), on the energy efficiency of steel
    framing, and this year we hope to expand our collaborative work to
    include the Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT), on the
    application of our safe, energy-efficient, lightweighting technology to
    trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
                       office of industrial technologies
    The technology roadmap project: building on past successes under the
            metals initiative
        The steel industry has long made collaborative research an integral
    part of its business strategies. A prime manifestation of that way of
    thinking has been our longstanding relationship with DOE and
    specifically the Office of Industrial Technologies.
        Our most recent success is the Advanced Process Control (APC)
    Program. Since 1993, APC participants--steel companies, other research
    organizations and a number of the national laboratories--working
    together have developed sensors which see, hear and feel steelmaking
    processes. The common goal of the APC projects is to reduce waste of
    time and energy by employing advanced measurement techniques and
    controls to assure that our steel products meet our customers
    specifications the first time, every time. Important discoveries have
    been made under the Advanced Process Control Program and these
    breakthroughs in ``smart steelmaking'' are now being applied in
    domestic steel plants. Detailed reports on each of the APC projects
    have been prepared regularly over the life of the program and we would
    be happy to provide the Subcommittee with any additional information it
    might desire.
        Building upon APC, AISI and OIT launched the Technology Roadmap
    Research Program in 1997. Through careful cooperation between the steel
    industry and DOE, we first developed the Technology Roadmap, a document
    that defines the breakthroughs necessary for steel to remain on the
    leading edge of technology application and therefore able to compete
    effectively in our global economy. The Technology Roadmap is divided
    into four critical areas:
        1. Process development,
        2. Product properties,
        3. Environmental performance and
        4. Recycling.
        The document has been translated into a five-year research program
    that is refocused annually on different sections of the Roadmap. In
    1999, we elected to focus on steel properties, environmental advances,
    joining technologies and process development and we look forward to the
    new challenges and opportunities this research will address.
        In closing this section of my statement, I wish to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, and the entire Subcommittee for your faithful and yearly
    support for these programs. We strongly endorse this Subcommittee's
    funding of the DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies at the levels
    requested in the President's budget. Our industry remains committed to
    shouldering our share of the research funding and we look forward to
    continuing the fruitful partnership your steadfast support has made
    possible.
                     office of transportation technologies
    Partnership for a new generation of vehicles (PNGV) and the
            consideration of steel
        There is a widely held but false belief that to reduce weight in
    auto bodies, other materials must be substituted for steel. This was
    clearly disproved in 1998 when the steel industry demonstrated a 36
    percent weight reduction using conventional steels and automotive
    manufacturing practices under its Ultra-Light Steel Auto Body (ULSAB)
    program (described in detail in our 1998 testimony).
        Despite steel's accomplishments in designing lightweight steel
    vehicles, last year steel was again excluded from consideration by PNGV
    as a viable material for the car of the future. This is evidenced by
    PNGV Report Number 4 (April 1998) which was dismissive of steel. We
    have now been informed by PNGV officials that it is also unlikely that
    Report Number 5 (due second quarter 1999) will recognize steel, the
    incumbent automotive material, as a solution for the future.
        Our concern that alternate materials have been pre-ordained as the
    only viable materials for future auto bodies cannot be overstated.
    However, recent events might compel PNGV to consider steel. AISI has
    recently announced the ULSAB-AVC (Advanced Vehicle Concept) Program
    whose goal is the design of an auto body that meets the PNGV goals for
    weight reduction, recycling, safety, affordability and performance.
    ULSAB-AVC will explore new steels and technologies to bridge the gap
    between the 36 percent weight reduction of ULSAB and the PNGV goal of
    50 percent weight reduction, without sacrificing recycling, safety,
    affordability or performance.
        Mr. Chairman, we ask for the Subcommittee's careful oversight of
    PNGV to ensure that steel's case is heard and that we have a fair
    chance to compete with other materials in the market where steel
    remains--and with good reason--the material of choice.
    Energy efficiency through downweighting of trucks: steel is ready to
            help
        On the general topic of collaborative research on vehicles, we have
    worked on dozens of major engineering challenges with the Big Three U.
    S. automakers in the prototype supplier-customer collaboration known as
    the Auto/Steel Partnership, dating back to 1987. More recently, we have
    been deeply involved with the automakers and other materials
    industries--under the auspices of the United States Automotive
    Materials Partnership (USAMP)--in compiling a comprehensive ``lifecycle
    inventory'' of materials used in autos. Completion of this painstaking
    task will make new and important information available to the auto
    sector, enabling it to weigh as never before the environmental impacts
    of competing materials across their full life of mining, manufacturing,
    production, use, recycling and disposal.
        With respect to downweighting light trucks specifically, it has
    long been a priority of AISI to develop a lightweight steel design for
    this market of make-or-break importance to U. S. auto manufacturers.
    Our original Auto Weight Reduction Program (AWRP) included $1 million
    to conduct a light truck study with one of the automobile companies. A
    proprietary project was initiated with Ford in 1995 to achieve the
    weight target set for the MY 2000 Explorer. Preliminary analysis
    conducted by Porsche Engineering demonstrated that the weight goal
    could be met with a steel structure, at which time Ford took the
    research inside the company for completion.
        Building on that experience, the Auto Weight Reduction Program task
    force developed the Light Truck Structure (LTS) project. Under the LTS
    project, Porsche Engineering developed a conceptual design for a
    lightweight steel body for the light truck market that includes a
    modular body-in-white, a flexible-design modular frame and related
    chassis elements. The concept demonstrated the capability to modify
    both sport utility and heavy duty/extended cab options using steel. The
    total cost of the LTS study was over two million dollars. The design
    concept study took approximately fifteen months to complete and the
    results were presented to the auto companies and OEM suppliers in 1997.
        With our considerable experience and motivation toward
    downweighting trucks (and sport utility vehicles), we fully support the
    OTT's intended programs in this area beginning in fiscal year 2000. We
    ask that the Subcommittee set aside funds for this important research
    which the steel industry stands ready to cost-share.
                         office of building technology
    Thermal Efficiency of Homes Framed in Steel; A Promising Beginning to a
            new Partnership
        One Technology Roadmap project organized under our partnership with
    OIT has permitted us, for the first time, to work with the Office of
    Building Technology. AISI (in the form of its North American Steel
    Framing Alliance (NASFA)) has teamed with OIT, OBT, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory and the National Association of Homebuilders Research Center
    to explore the thermal energy efficiency of homes framed in steel. The
    3-year project is comprehensive, including such things as air
    infiltration (steel houses are ``tighter'') and other heating
    efficiency factors.
        We hope that this new partnership with DOE, the national labs, the
    NAHB-RC and other federal agencies will not only yield results useful
    to the American homeowner but will inform the international
    homebuilding community as well. Other governments, including housing
    officials of the Peoples Republic of China, have shown strong interest
    in steel framed housing. We also hope there will be additional
    opportunities for this partnership and other partnerships to pursue
    other common goals together. For example, we are actively looking into
    the Office's new initiative in improving the energy efficiency of
    schools. School construction is yet another instance in which steel--
    especially highly reflective roofing steel--offers outstanding
    qualities as a material responsive to the energy efficiency needs of
    the nation.
        Again, AISI urges careful and favorable consideration of the
    Department's requests for funds to pursue this legitimate line of
    public-private inquiry in building technologies.
        In summary, let us say that AISI and its member companies have had
    a very positive experience in working with the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under Assistant Secretary Dan
    Reicher. EERE is a highly motivated and effective government agency.
    The OIT/AISI relationship came first and has matured into a productive
    collaboration and led to the additional opportunities represented by
    OTT and OBT projects. We strongly urge the Subcommittee's favorable
    response to the Department's request for additional funds to be matched
    and multiplied into additional achievements in the national interest.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to offer these
    comments. We stand ready to supply any additional information you,
    Subcommittee members, or Subcommittee staff might wish to have.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
        The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) appreciates this
    opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the fiscal year 2000
    appropriations for the U.S Department of Energy (DOE). PTTC strongly
    supports Congressional funding for DOE's Office of Fossil Energy at the
    level requested in the Administration's budget or higher.
        PTTC is a national not-for-profit organization formed in 1994 by
    the independent oil and natural gas producing industry to accelerate
    the dissemination of exploration and production (E&P) technologies and
    help identify the highest-priority technical needs of industry. PTTC
    receives funding under a cost-shared grant from DOE's Office of Fossil
    Energy. These funds are matched by support from several state
    governments, universities, state geological surveys, and industry
    donations. Although PTTC's grant is administered through the National
    Petroleum Technology Office, funding comes from both the oil and
    natural gas programs of DOE. The Federal Energy Technology Center also
    provides multi-faceted support for PTTC activities related to natural
    gas resources.
        PTTC would like to make several key points in support of DOE's oil
    and gas programs under the Office of Fossil Energy:
         industry crisis heightens the need for access to technologies
        The U.S. petroleum industry is trying to survive its worst crisis
    in history--one that has had devastating effects on employment,
    production, and the basic infrastructure of this vital business. The
    following quotes from testimony presented by Steve Layton, President/
    CEO of Equinox Oil Company, on behalf of the Independent Petroleum
    Association of America (IPAA) on January 28, 1999, before the U.S.
    Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, summarize the
    importance of independent producers and the serious implications of
    today's crisis:
        ``The onshore lower 48 states account for about 60 percent of total
    domestic oil production. The Energy Information Agency has released a
    recent report that over 60 percent of this onshore lower 48 production
    comes from independents, a percentage that has increased by ten percent
    over the past decade. It reflects an irreversible trend. Major oil
    companies are leaving the onshore lower 48 states. . . . Consequently,
    the onshore is now the principal province of independent producers. In
    contrast to the majors, independents do not have the capital and other
    resources to carry them through protracted lean time. . . . At current
    prices, most--if not all--of the onshore lower 48 production is at risk
    of loss.
        ``The vital infrastructure of our industry is being shattered. . .
    . This loss of activity reflects the serious impact low oil prices will
    have on future production. . . . If we lose our onshore lower 48
    production, our reliance on foreign oil will increase from about 55
    percent to over 70 percent--Behind these numbers is a realization that
    jobs are being lost by the tens of thousands, skills that will not be
    recovered by the industry in the future. . . . IPAA analyzed the
    domestic oil industry based on economic multiplier factors associated
    with lost revenues. This analysis concludes that the domestic oil
    industry has lost 50,000 jobs or more from the current price crisis.
        ``Without this infrastructure it is not only the nation's oil
    industry at risk but its future natural gas use as well. This country
    has a vision of building a future on expanded use of clean burning
    natural gas. . . . It cannot happen without a healthy oil industry. Oil
    and gas are found together. They rely on the same tools, the same
    science, the same skills, and the same financial resources.''
        In response to the seriousness of the industry crisis, DOE formed
    an Oil Emergency Task Force last year that resulted in many initiatives
    that are proving beneficial to independents in the technology arena--
    especially DOE's commitment to provide millions more in cost-shared
    programs to assist small independents with specific production
    problems. In addition, its pilot program to showcase new energy-
    efficient technologies and motor replacements is showing promising
    results in several regions. Starting with a prototype in Texas, DOE's
    program to help move industry toward online permitting could save
    millions in administrative costs. PTTC also supports the other
    important programs in the fiscal year 2000 budget for DOE's Office of
    Fossil Energy.
        In trying to survive the crisis, the nation's small independent
    operating companies are also turning more and more toward PTTC's
    information network and local, inter-disciplinary referral system. In
    this way, independents are able to gain access to the results of DOE's
    research and development (R&D) programs to recover more domestic
    petroleum resources and slow the abandonment of marginal wells. An
    estimated 40 percent of U.S. marginal wells have already been shut
    down, and more are in jeopardy.
            industry and government should share in r&d investments
        At the same time that the major companies are moving overseas and
    independents are trying to weather the crisis conditions, industry
    investment in petroleum technology and R&D is being cut to the bone.
    Therefore, it is critical for DOE's Office of Fossil Energy to continue
    its important work in R&D and technology transfer activities. The focus
    on these programs should continue on advances in geosciences that can
    achieve the greatest return in deferring premature well abandonments
    and maximizing incremental oil and natural gas production.
        Public and private research projects continue to achieve advances
    in petroleum E&P technology that could yield significant national
    benefits in the form of increased domestic production, reduced oil
    imports, and increased public sector revenues. Both industry and the
    public sector gain from the development and application of advanced E&P
    technologies; thus, both should share in the investments. Government
    also has an essential stewardship role--to ensure that domestic
    resources are produced efficiently and with respect for the
    environment. To achieve these goals, industry and government must work
    together. PTTC is proud to be a prime example of how the federal
    government can work with industry and state governments in a successful
    partnership.
       effective technology transfer is essential to realize r&d benefits
        The full economic potential of new and existing technologies will
    not be achieved if producers are not aware of the technology,
    understand its economic potential, or feel comfortable with applying
    it. Nor will it be achieved if known resources are abandoned in the
    reservoir before the technology can be applied. Effective technology
    transfer is essential to achieve the full benefits of this potential
    and to sustain a viable domestic petroleum industry.
        Investments in research and technology are worth little if the
    results are not aggressively transferred and applied to produce more
    oil and natural gas. Some 80 percent of the potential benefits of
    improved technologies could be foregone without technology transfer.
    The government has already invested vast sums through the years in
    federally funded research at national laboratories, DOE laboratories,
    universities, and other R&D providers. To truly obtain value from this
    investment, it is critical to continue funding the technology transfer
    and related programs of DOE's Office of Fossil Energy.
                   identifying industry's technological needs
        PTTC performs various technology transfer functions to inform
    producers of potential solutions to economically address their
    problems. Where answers are not available, PTTC reports the technology
    gaps and their relative urgency to the R&D community to help guide and
    focus the direction and priorities of public and private research. PTTC
    has helped DOE in targeting upstream R&D efforts on practical, short-
    term projects with immediate applications in the field. As a result,
    informing users of new and on-going research projects accelerates the
    public and private R&D process. PTTC distributed a technology needs
    survey to industry in 1998, and will be releasing the results in an
    updated report by June 1999.
        Further, PTTC technology workshops serve as catalysts for bringing
    new partners into R&D consortia and other industry groups. An important
    benefit is that small independent operating companies (those without
    sufficient staff or budget for R&D) have new access to cost-efficient
    technologies to maximize the recovery of oil and natural gas reserves.
                  technology transfer programs showing results
        In less than five years, PTTC has achieved its original goals--and
    gained the widespread credibility within the upstream petroleum
    industry that is vital to success. PTTC programs are set up to
    disseminate cost-effective technological solutions addressing a wide
    range of problems--exploration, drilling and completion, operations and
    production, reservoir and development, as well as environmental
    compliance. . . . Following are the most important accomplishments in
    expanding industry awareness and technology usage at the national and
    regional level:
      --Industry Crisis Action Plan.--PTTC initiated a crisis action plan
            in Dec. 1998. Nearly 20 survival-oriented workshops, addressing
            the economic margin, were held in early 1999, with more coming.
      --Technology workshops.--PTTC held 100 workshops last year and is on
            track to hold just as many this year. Nearly 4,500 individuals
            attended PTTC workshops in fiscal year 1998, with nearly 75
            percent of those from industry. These workshops are held in
            throughout the oil and gas producing areas to provide real-
            world information and solutions to address E&P challenges on a
            variety of topics from 3-D seismic applications to produced
            water disposal. To leverage limited resources, most PTTC events
            are held with other organizations such as professional
            societies and state/regional producers associations.
      --Workshops with DOE.--PTTC has sponsored many workshops to transfer
            the results of DOE programs to independents, including DOE's
            Reservoir Class Demonstration Project. In upcoming events, PTTC
            will be releasing the outcome of DOE-funded research in
            microbial enhanced recovery projects, and underground natural
            gas storage, as well as a new coiled tubing field manual.
      --Distance Learning.--Some regions are exploring new technology
            transfer mechanisms for disseminating workshops to those who
            cannot attend, including on-line training resources and
            webcasting--full audio and video transmission of workshops via
            the Internet.
      --Regional resource centers.--Independents contact their local PTTC
            resource center for a variety of services: (1) access to
            information/data resources, (2) expert response to inquiries,
            (3) demonstration and training for E&P software, (4)
            information products, (5) help with understanding technological
            problems and opportunities, (6) access to special purpose
            databases, and (7) special outreach efforts.
      --E&P Software Training.--PTTC issued a Petroleum E&P Software
            Sampler on CD-ROM last year that contains overview information
            on 50 PC-based upstream software programs that have been
            generously donated to PTTC resource centers by c ommercial
            software vendors.
      --Internet websites.--With a national website plus 10 regional sites,
            PTTC's electronic network is a key delivery system for oil and
            gas information, data, case studies, calendars of events, and
            technical summaries. Industry usage is increasing as the on-
            line technical content and search capabilities grow.
      --Newsletters.--The 16-page, quarterly national newsletter, PTTC
            Network News, reaches nearly 6,000 readers (about half are
            independent E&P companies). Regional newsletters also inform
            thousands of local producers about technology transfer
            activities and the results of DOE technical programs.
      --Case Studies/Reports.--PTTC has developed many producer-vendor case
            studies and is releasing a new digest this summer with more
            articles. In addition, an updated report is expected in June
            1999 summarizing the technical information conveyed during the
            best workshops held in the past two years.
      --Region-Specific Products.--Several regions have developed products
            specific to local needs, such as the Louisiana Desktop Well
            Reference on CD-ROM, which provides lease and production data.
            The West Coast Region is developing a reservoir/field CD-ROM
            with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the state of
            California. There are many similar examples in other regions.
                                   conclusion
        Congress should continue to support an active DOE role in
    petroleum-related R&D and technology transfer through the Office of
    Fossil Energy, especially in light of the devastating effects of the
    recent industry crisis. Through technology transfer efforts, the value
    of DOE programs in these areas extends far beyond geoscience research.
    The results of federally funded research will reach operators in the
    field, where it can be used to preserve and expand our national
    resource base. The investment by DOE in technology transfer programs
    will be returned in multiples through incremental federal revenues from
    new projects and additional energy production that will be stimulated
    by effective technology transfer.
        As one successful example, PTTC delivers demonstrable and
    measurable benefits to the producing industry and to the nation.
    Additional information can be provided for the record from independent
    producers who have learned about new technological solutions through
    PTTC.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and please let us know
    if PTTC can supply any additional information for the record.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc.
                                    foreward
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Sub-Committee, Hydrocarbon
    Technologies, Inc. (HTI) appreciates your prior support and invitation
    to testify with respect to the Fossil Energy Research and Development
    Programs and, in particular, restoring the appropriation for
    Hydroconversion (Direct Liquefaction) of carbon-based feedstocks to $3
    million.
        Today, we find our country entering the 21st century with major
    concerns for the environment with a focus on global warming but also an
    awareness that liquid hydrocarbons will continue as a major source of
    transportation fuels. As a nation of high-energy consumers, we must
    study and address these forecasts. Hydroconversion of coal, wastes, and
    renewables answers both the environmental concerns of global warming
    and reduces the potential for ground water pollution from landfills,
    while producing clean, high-mileage, and specialty transportation fuels
    and high value by-products.
        Direct Liquefaction (hydroconversion) is a high-efficiency (>75
    percent) process that adds hydrogen to low-value carbon feedstocks
    (coal, heavy oil, MSW, biomass) and removes sulfur, nitrogen, and other
    heteroatoms to directly produce ultra-clean fuels and chemicals. The
    overall energy consumed is a third that of other indirect conversion
    technologies. The Administration, in its subtle efforts to de-emphasize
    the use of coal, is reducing and closing down many of the programs that
    rely on coal. Coal is the most abundant and lowest-cost energy form in
    the United States; it can be utilized in an environmentally acceptable
    manner if the emissions reduction accomplishments of the last two
    decades can be improved and extended. High efficiency and low-cost
    emissions control can significantly reduce environmental concerns over
    the use of coal. This work needs to be given a higher priority over the
    support now going to existing, commercially proven energy sources.
        HTI, working with the United States Department of Energy (US DOE),
    is planning to improve the current coal/oil technology and expand its
    scope to include wastes and biomass leading to a more environmentally-
    friendly, higher efficiency, lower cost technology. We are using the
    vast knowledge base attained through direct liquefaction
    (hydroconversion) R&D over the last 30 years and recent advances that
    can leapfrog the technology into the 21st century as a more
    environmentally responsive industry based on domestic raw materials.
        The area in which HTI will concentrate its efforts will be to
    develop this highly efficient, versatile technology to produce high-
    value carbon products, specialty chemicals, and alternate fuels at a
    lower cost and smaller scale for wider application using diverse
    carbon-based feedstocks with coal in balance with the environmental
    objectives of the US DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
        Our vision is to create an energy industry based on technologies
    focused on zero emissions and the reduction and stabilization of
    harmful atmospheric gases, an industry that will protect the public
    interest while maintaining social progress.
                               program objectives
      --To provide a versatile, high-efficiency, variable feed, co-
            processing process for integration into a Vision 21 Concept
            Modular Plant that will produce clean opportunity fuels at zero
            emissions
      --To study and develop processes based on co-processing for the
            conversion of renewable and waste energy sources into hydrogen,
            clean fuels, and chemicals
      --To further the development of waste/coal/oil co-processing and
            hydroconversion processes for refinery integration and for the
            production of specialty fuels, carbon products, and chemicals
            in an environmentally-benign manner
        Help is requested to provide sufficient funding to carry on R&D on
    the following concepts nurtured at HTI and DOE:
      --The Co-Processing (Hydroconversion) of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW),
            waste plastics, and renewables with fossil fuels to produce
            clean transportation and specialty jet fuels, chemicals, and
            carbon products
      --The preparation of carbon products from fossil fuels--Ultra high
            strength carbon fibers are produced from coal-derived liquids
            and are used to produce durable, light-weight, structural
            materials for automobiles and for military transport
      --R&D on breakthrough mass transfer reaction technology that will
            result in more than a twofold performance improvement in Co-
            Processing (Hydroconversion) making it more competitive and
            more environmentally responsive
      --A new technology for easily converting MSW and renewables to
            hydrogen and synthesis gas for inclusion in a Vision 21 Modular
            Plant
      --Carbon Dioxide, available in concentrated form from hydroconversion
            processes, can be reduced and used in steel making, can also be
            used for conversion to hydrogen and syngas and for conversion
            to carbon and carbon monoxide for reforming
        HTI is requesting support for a budget of $3 million to be
    allocated for obtaining commercialization data and for work in the
    foregoing areas that transcend from hydroconversion to programs much
    wider in scope and programs that will provide solutions and direction
    to solve the environmental challenges of the 21st century. Help us to
    realize this vision of a new energy industry for the United States that
    does not compromise the environment.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Fuel Cell Commercialization Group
        The FCCG is an association of utilities and other energy users
    interested in the business potential of the Direct Fuel Cell Energy
    Plant for electric generation and customer service. The FCCG supports
    the development of this technology by providing market and operations
    experience and demonstration support to Energy Research Corporation's
    (ERC) technology development program. This technology was chosen in
    1988 as a result of ERC's outstanding response to a utility industry
    Notice of Market Opportunity.
                         direct fuel cell energy plant
        Fuel cells represent a superior option for FCCG members' compliance
    with all existing and anticipated environmental control legislation,
    including the Clean Air Act of 1990 and its mandates on acid rain
    pollutants. Since fuel is not combusted in ERC's Direct Fuel Cell
    Energy Plant, there are virtually no acid rain gases such as nitrogen
    oxide or sulfuric oxide exhausted. In fact, ERC's use of natural gas
    and unmatched high efficiency results in carbon dioxide emissions 22 to
    36 percent lower than any other fossil-fueled alternatives. Compared
    with coal-fueled power plants, whose efficiency can be an average of 37
    percent, stationary fuel cell power plants have demonstrated a 55
    percent performance efficiency in power production. This efficiency
    rating can be increased to 80 percent or higher through the use of its
    byproduct heat, which itself has many applications. Fuel cells combine
    these possible savings with lower maintenance needs due to the lack of
    moving parts. This clean, quiet, and efficient technology will be an
    excellent resource for distributed generation sited close to electrical
    customers. Only ERC has demonstrated its dedication by using a
    continuously operational advanced fuel cell energy plant to supply
    250kW of electricity to its company headquarters in Danbury,
    Connecticut.
                               industry requests
        Constituents in the utility and energy industries have seen
    distressing trends in previous appropriations of Congress for the
    Department of Energy's stationary fuel cell programs. The aggregate
    need for stationary fuel cell programs in fiscal year 1999 was
    underfunded by over $15 million. This affects the timeliness of
    industry access to fuel cell technology. Already, three FCCG members
    are negotiating for procurement of the Direct Fuel Cell Energy Plant.
    With constituents queuing up to purchase and commencing field trials,
    Congressional support of DOE stationary fuel cell programs is critical
    to enhancing market confidence and keeping the program on track.
        The DOE is currently supporting three fuel cell development
    programs contained in the line item for Fossil Energy natural gas
    budget line. The fiscal year 2000 aggregate need approaches $65
    million.
        We commend you and the Appropriations Committee for your past
    support. We ask that you recognize the growing importance of the DOE
    stationary fuel cell initiatives and appropriate the necessary $65
    million in fiscal year 2000.
        The completion of the Direct Fuel Cell Energy Plant will have major
    economic and environmental benefits, not only for utilities and
    electricity consumers in the U.S., but for the global energy
    marketplace.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the service
    organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal and
    other state and locally owned utilities throughout the U.S.
    Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to one of
    seven electric consumers (about 40 million people) serving some of our
    nation's largest cities. The majority of APPA's member systems are
    located in small and medium-sized communities in every state except
    Hawaii. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement
    concerning fiscal year 2000 appropriations. The focus of our testimony
    will be on U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs within this
    Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
                         doe energy efficiency programs
        APPA supports the Administration's emphasis on DOE energy
    efficiency programs in its funding request for fiscal year 2000. We ask
    that this Subcommittee ensure these important programs continue to be
    among the options available to our nation's electric utilities as they
    strive to meet the increased competitive and environmental demands
    placed on them by the marketplace and society. While we realize the
    budget constraints you face, we ask for favorable action on the
    Administration's request in this area. DOE's energy efficiency programs
    received funding of $717 million in fiscal year 1995. Appropriations
    were cut 25 percent in fiscal year 1996 and were increased by nearly 9
    percent in fiscal year 1998. The Administration is proposing to further
    increase funding in fiscal year 2000 to approximately $838 million, 34
    percent above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Such increased
    expenditures are warranted because energy efficiency is becoming even
    more important in the context of changes occurring as a result of
    electric utility industry restructuring. Due to these changes, many
    utilities already have downsized or terminated some energy efficiency
    programs in order to reduce costs. Yet these programs can be very
    helpful in maximizing the overall progress made toward achieving a
    competitive, high-growth economy for our nation while maintaining the
    kind of environmental quality we all desire for the future.
        Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle--We urge the Subcommittee
    to fund DOE's PNGV program at the $143 million level requested by the
    President. It is important that these advanced technologies be
    available for application to both mobile and stationary sources. The
    availability of fuel cell technology for transportation is critical for
    cities and states that must achieve mandated federal air quality
    standards. The fuel cell vehicle is virtually pollution free and highly
    efficient. Even a 10 percent market penetration could reduce regulated
    air pollutants by more than one million tons a year and emissions of
    carbon dioxide by 60 million tons a year. (This would fulfill the U.S.
    commitment to bring its CO2 emissions back to 1990 levels.) It also
    would save 800,000 barrels of oil a day. One of APPA's members, the
    Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD), has done extensive
    research in this field because of the outstanding environmental and
    energy efficiency attributes of the technology.
        Community and Building Technologies.--APPA supports the
    Administration's request of $335.9 million to restore previous
    reductions to these energy partnership programs. Among them are
    #T3Rebuild America, designed to accelerate energy efficiency
    improvements in existing commercial and multi-family buildings, and
    DOE's Energy Partnerships for Affordable Homes Program, a collaboration
    of public and non-public groups working to make public and private
    housing more energy efficient and affordable. DOE can play a
    facilitating role in helping bring new technologies and standards to
    market. Examples of valuable DOE efforts in this regard include the
    Technology Introduction Partnerships (TIPS) program and Motor
    Challenge. TIPS, in particular, has been an important one for APPA
    member systems. Motor Challenge is a voluntary partnership between DOE
    and industry designed to promote adoption of motors and motor-driven
    equipment that increase energy efficiency, enhance productivity and
    improve environmental quality. By the year 2000 it is estimated Motor
    Challenge will generate energy cost savings of $1.2 billion and
    electricity savings of 25 billion kWh.
        Building Codes and Standards.--EPAct also requires each state to
    certify that it has reviewed its residential and commercial building
    codes to determine whether they meet energy efficiency targets. DOE is
    providing important technical assistance to encourage states to adopt
    such codes. We support the Administration's request that $26.7 million
    be provided to continue this program.
        Community Energy Systems.--District heating and cooling systems act
    as community energy systems by transporting waste energy (from local
    power plants, industrial processes and natural resources) to buildings
    to provide heating and/or cooling. In addition to reducing emissions of
    carbon dioxide and other pollutants, these systems enhance energy
    security and cost stability, stimulate community development and
    facilitate phase-out of ozone-destroying refrigerants. APPA member
    systems that receive information and technical assistance from this
    program include those located in Burlington, VT; Fairbanks, AK; San
    Antonio, TX; Holyoke, MA, and Lansing, MI. APPA recommends $5 million
    to provide: (1) an integrated information campaign to local and state
    governments and the private sector on the benefits of district energy,
    and technical assistance and cost-shared funding for community energy
    resource assessments and feasibility studies, and (2) research,
    development and demonstration in partnership with ongoing cooperative
    international efforts to reduce costs and improve efficiencies of
    district energy technologies.
        Municipal and Community Energy Management.--This program, within
    the Office of Building Technology, provides funding to municipalities
    for conducting a variety of projects that address energy-related areas
    of greatest concern to local governments. APPA recommends this program,
    operated by the Urban Consortium Energy Task Force (UCETF), receive
    $1.6 million, funding level to that provided in fiscal year 1998. UCETF
    is a program of Public Technology, Inc. (PTI), the non-profit
    technology organization of the National League of Cities, the National
    Association of Counties and the International City/County Management
    Association. Currently 22 jurisdictions, including many public power
    communities, are represented on UCETF: Albuquerque, NM; Austin, TX;
    Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Dade County, FL; Denver, CO; Greensboro, NC;
    Hennepin County, MN; Kansas City, MO; Long Beach, CA; Memphis, TN;
    Monroe County, NY; Montgomery County, MD; Orange County, FL;
    Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; San
    Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA, and Washington, D.C.
        Weatherization Assistance Program.--APPA wholeheartedly supports
    the Administration's budget request of $154 million for weatherization
    assistance, especially important to the working poor, elderly and
    disabled. The program helps more than 100,000 residents annually.
    Weatherization programs have the additional benefit of stimulating
    economic growth by increasing disposable income and creating jobs in
    the service sector. The DOE Weatherization Assistance Program has been
    especially effective at helping low income citizens afford their energy
    bills and at the same time reduce their energy usage. The funding
    increases requested for fiscal year 2000 should be provided to this
    valuable program to help alleviate the multi-year backlog of
    weatherization work requested locally.
        State Energy Conservation Program.--State energy offices work on
    nearly every energy efficiency issue. They encourage technology
    development, renewable energy, alternative fuels, energy emergency
    preparedness, energy facility siting, recycling, transportation
    efficiency programs, energy conservation and economic development,
    among other activities. State energy offices have been extremely
    successful in identifying the needs of local communities, businesses
    and consumers, and funding appropriate efforts to effectively transfer
    technology to constituents. With increased devolution of
    responsibilities to the states, this program offers the ideal
    combination of state-level implementation on a flexible basis with
    federal support. We ask that this Subcommittee favorably consider the
    Administration's request of $37 million for the State Energy
    Conservation Program. The program suffered a 50 percent cut in fiscal
    year 1996. The spending level requested for fiscal year 2000 represents
    an increase of nearly $4 million above the fiscal year 1999 enacted
    level.
              doe fossil energy research and development programs
        Fuel Cells.--Fuel cells have captured the interest of government
    and industry alike. Their modularity, high efficiency and negligible
    emissions of smog and acid rain precursors make fuel cells an important
    growth area deserving national priority. A consortium, including APPA
    member systems, along with the National Rural Electric Cooperative
    Association (NRECA), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and
    DOE, is co-sponsoring carbonate fuel cell research, testing and the
    first utility-scale demonstration of a carbonate fuel cell power plant.
    The direct fuel cell program consists of two major efforts--the Santa
    Clara Demonstration Project and the ongoing Product Design Improvement
    (PDI) cost-shared initiative.
        The first demonstration of an U.S.-developed fuel cell power plant
    has now begun operation in Santa Clara, CA. This 2-MW fuel cell unit
    has achieved a 44 percent efficiency level, a record for a fossil
    fueled power plant of this size, has recorded emissions below
    conventional detection limits and is providing valuable information on
    fuel cell power plant operations. APPA member systems participating in
    the consortium include the City of Santa Clara, Los Angeles Department
    of Water & Power, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of
    Vernon, CA, the Salt River Project and Northern California Power
    Agency. The final phase of the development effort, the design and
    fielding of a pre-commercial unit has now begun. The 21 members of the
    Fuel Cell Commercialization Group (FCCG) support performance and cost
    targets for this final phase. In addition to those named as supporters
    of the Santa Clara project, APPA member systems comprising FCCG include
    Alabama Municipal Electric Authority, City of Anaheim (CA) Public
    Utilities Department, Florida Municipal Power Agency, City of Manassas
    (VA) Electric Department, City of Tallahassee (FL) Electric Department
    and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. In fiscal year 2000, the
    cost-shared contract calls for DOE support in the amount of $41.4
    million. We urge Congress to fully fund this project so that progress
    can continue toward full commercialization.
        ``Industries of the Future--Specific.''--APPA strongly supports the
    fiscal year 2000 request of $74 million for this public-private
    partnership efforts which focus on developing technologies that cut
    energy use, emissions, and waste in multiple industries and provide
    cost-effective solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. fiscal
    year 2000 efforts concentrate on a new biogasification initiative and
    accelerated development of a new electrode system for aluminum
    production. In addition, efforts with the Petroleum industry are
    revitalized after a period of reorientation to develop technology road
    map for future joint R&D.
        Energy Information Administration (EIA).--APPA supports the
    Administration request of $72.6 million to enable EIA to continue its
    important role in data collection and dissemination. With increasing
    competitiveness in the electric utility industry, it is critical that
    utilities, government, regulators and the public all have access to
    reliable data from EIA in order to monitor pricing and structural
    changes in the electric utility industry and their effects on
    competition.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Dr. Frank Derbyshire, Director, University of
                  Kentucky, Center for Applied Energy Research
                                  introduction
        In 1994, the Kentucky Coal Council and the University of Kentucky
    Center for Applied Energy Research began to work with the Department of
    Energy to develop a mechanism for accelerating the deployment of
    advanced coal-fired power generation plants. The basic concept involves
    using coal gasification as the cornerstone technology of a multiplex
    facility that will co-produce added-value products together with
    electrical power from coal. In this way, chemical and materials
    production can be integrated with power generation, attracting
    investment by a range of industries, and reducing the risks associated
    with the construction of a first of a kind plant. The scheme now forms
    an important component of the Department of Energy's Vision 21
    strategy.
        In testimony that I have provided over the last few years, I have
    asked this committee to support this initiative in order to facilitate
    the commercialization of advanced technologies for the production of
    environmentally friendly, efficient coal-fired power generation that
    have matured under the DoE Clean Coal Technology program. Today, I
    would like to update the committee on the status of our efforts to
    develop and advance the concept, and to request continued
    appropriations to the Department of Energy in order to sustain relevant
    programs over the next few years.
                         coal and the national economy
        Every credible forecast of future energy use indicates that coal
    will continue to remain the backbone of the American economy. The
    Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that coal use in the
    United States (US) will increase by about 20 percent between 1996 and
    2015, while energy from non-fossil sources is predicted to decline over
    this period as a result of the retirement of nuclear plants. On a
    global basis, EIA projections forecast that coal use will increase by
    almost 50 percent from the current level of 5122 million tons annually
    to 7495 million tons in 2015. Only 10 percent of this increase is
    expected to occur in OECD countries and the former Soviet Union. In the
    developing world, coal use is forecast to increase by 100 percent.
        The annual coal production in the United States is around 1 billion
    tons per year and most of it is used to generate 56 percent of our
    electricity. While coal production levels over the last 20 years have
    increased, the number of people involved in coal mining has decreased
    by almost two-thirds and productivity has increased by almost the same
    proportion. Due to this increase in productivity, we have actually
    experienced declining energy costs. The cost of coal is the same now as
    in 1979, without correction for inflation. The low cost of coal-derived
    energy has had a buffering influence on the cost of competing forms of
    energy generation, and has helped to stabilize the cost of electric
    power.
        Although we must continue to emphasize the use of coal in the
    future, we also face environmental challenges. There are serious
    concerns over emissions from coal-fired power plants: oxides of sulfur
    and nitrogen; air toxics; fine particulates; and carbon dioxide. These
    emissions may have an adverse influence on human and animal health, and
    upon our environment, and the production of greenhouse gases, notably
    CO2, CH4, and N2, may potentially
    affect our climate.
        The solution to these regional and global problems lies in the
    development of new technologies, their implementation, and their export
    to developing countries. In this regard we fully support the principles
    that the Department of Energy has put forth in the Vision 21 Program.
    That is, ``the integration of emerging concepts for high-efficiency
    power production and pollution controls into a new class of fuel
    flexible electric generation facilities''. Vision 21 also offers market
    entry strategy for new concepts to co-produce high value fuels and
    chemicals from coal or other feedstocks.
                           the co-production concept
        Research and development fostered by the DoE's Clean Coal
    Technology Program has clearly demonstrated that integrated
    gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power generation can allow the
    production of clean electrical power from coal. The advantages of IGCC
    include: flexibility in fuel selection; advanced emissions control;
    improved thermal efficiency; and waste minimization. Low grade coals
    and/or waste materials can be utilized with up to 99 percent sulfur
    removal. NOX emissions are reduced relative to combustion
    processes, and the thermal efficiency is increased by as much as 35
    percent over conventional plants, with a concomitant reduction in
    CO2 emissions per unit of power produced.
        To date, there has only been limited implementation of these
    technologies. Numerous studies have found that utilities recognize the
    potential advantages of advanced power generation technologies.
    However, they are unwilling to incur costs that adversely affect their
    competitive position, and with any emerging technology there is some
    technical risk associated with a ``first-of-a-kind'' plant. IGCC
    represents a fundamentally new technology, and there is limited
    experience of economics and operation at the commercial scale. As a
    consequence, decisions to build new base-load capacity, and the type of
    technology that will be employed, are being deferred as long as
    possible. The life of existing plants is being extended, and
    comparatively low cost natural gas turbines are being used to meet
    peaking power needs.
        The co-production concept is based upon the principle that coal
    gasification can be a common denominator in the production of electric
    power and the synthesis of chemicals and liquid fuels from coal. The
    ability of the gasifier to accept a range of feeds of varying quality,
    and to generate of a clean synthesis gas, creates the prospect of being
    able to produce a range of high-value chemicals and alternate fuels as
    well as electric power in the same plant. Technical and economic
    advantages can be realized through the development of such an
    integrated, multiplex operation. Available technologies allow
    considerable latitude in selecting the desired end product or range of
    end products. These include: methanol, acetic acid, and acetic
    anhydride; pure hydrogen and CO; a spectrum of fuels and chemicals that
    is attainable through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis; and carbon materials.
        We believe that this concept will facilitate the commercial
    implementation of both IGCC and chemical synthesis, and it is fully
    congruent with the programs and policies of Vision 21.
                      the kentucky pioneer energy project
        As a direct result of our endeavors in the Commonwealth of
    Kentucky, an Independent Power Producer, Global Energy, has decided to
    pursue the construction of a 400MW IGCC power plant, known as the
    Kentucky Pioneer Project. In a landmark agreement that was announced in
    February by the Governor Paul Patton, Global Energy has contracted with
    East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) for the lease of a site and for
    the sale of electric power. Thus EKPC, an established utility, has
    integrated a flexibly-fueled IGCC plant into its future power
    production planning needs. These developments move the Kentucky Pioneer
    Project from a working concept into the next phase of financing and
    permitting.
        The plant is intended to be the most efficient and environmentally
    advanced coal-based power plant in the United States. The three main
    components of the plant involve fuel preparation, gasification and gas
    clean-up, and power generation. The plant will be fuelled by a mixture
    of coal and municipal solid waste (MSW), although other recyclable
    fuels may also be considered for co-firing with coal. The use of MSW
    further lowers the amount of fossil fuel CO2 emissions by up
    to 60 percent over that of a conventional coal fired power plant. The
    plant will convert over 1 million tons/year of MSW into clean gas.
        The gasifier was developed by British-Gas/Lurgi (BGL). It is a
    slagging gasifier that is the product of years of intensive development
    effort. Using the same technology, a coal/MSW-fed IGCC plant is in the
    latter stages of development in Scotland, and another is scheduled to
    go online in Germany this summer. The fuel versatility of the gasifier
    allows the production of clean energy while providing a solution to the
    environmental problems caused by the accumulation of solid wastes. The
    emissions from the plant will be close to zero: the gasifier byproduct
    is a hard, high density vitreous material that is inert and has
    attractive properties for different forms of construction.
        An important provision in Global Energy's plans is for the coupling
    of the power plant with a unit to use a slipstream of the synthesis gas
    to co-produce chemicals by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. The eventual
    integration of Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis with the Kentucky
    Pioneer Energy Plant will be pursued as a second stage of development.
    In addition to low cost power, co-products would then include high-
    value, high-purity chemicals, as well as ultra clean transportation
    fuels.
                                  future needs
        The construction of the Kentucky Pioneer Energy Plant represents a
    major step forward in the development of a fully integrated,
    environmentally acceptable, energy-efficient power complex for the next
    millennium as described under Vision 21. It presents a unique
    opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of the co-production
    approach as an incentive to the extensive commercialization of advanced
    technologies, and to providing solutions to other pressing
    environmental issues.
        At this critical stage, the continued involvement of the DoE and
    the sustainment of the Vision 21 program are pivotal to ensuring that
    this promising beginning translates into the realization of the long
    term goals. While IGCC and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis are proven
    technologies, the integration of these and other processes into
    flexible efficient systems have yet to be achieved. Supporting research
    and development on pertinent issues is essential to provide the
    assurances that the projected environmental and economic benefits that
    are promised by ventures such as the Kentucky Pioneer Plant can be
    brought to fruition.
        In this regard, we request that the Department of Energy's fossil
    fuel budget be strengthened in the areas of coal-based fuel
    preparation, gasifier byproduct management and utilization, synthesis
    gas clean-up, the production of added value materials from coal by
    synthesis gas conversion (specifically Fischer-Tropsch synthesis), and
    the use of heavy coal liquids for carbon materials synthesis in
    relation to the application and integration of these technologies in
    the co-production concept.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Energy Committee of the Council on
             Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to present the views of the Energy Committee of the Council
    on Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME
    International) regarding national energy needs, and to offer comments
    on appropriations for Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation programs at
    the Department of Energy.
        The 125,000-member ASME is an international engineering society
    focused on technical, educational, and research issues. The Energy
    Committee consists primarily of members representing eight technical
    divisions whose activities address energy technologies and energy
    resources.
                 role of technology in meeting our energy needs
        Increased national and international concerns about the environment
    are placing higher demands on the performance of our energy systems.
    These demands force us to make choices that balance economic growth and
    environmental quality. Investments in science and technology,
    particularly basic research, are essential for enabling our nation to
    meet our needs for inexpensive energy that is produced and consumed in
    an environmentally friendly manner. Such investments stimulate the
    development of innovative technologies, conquer major science and
    technology challenges, and maintain our educational pipeline to ensure
    a supply of human capital to address future energy needs.
                    recommendations concerning energy policy
        Energy R&D is one of ASME's three most important topics of concern
    according to a recent survey of our membership on public policy issues.
    Energy Committee members recommend support for an energy policy that:
      --maintains US competitiveness in the international marketplace and
            preserves jobs in our energy extraction and manufacturing
            industries;
      --ensures against energy disruptions due to external threats of
            interrupted supplies or infrastructure failure;
      --provides low cost energy to maintain our economic growth;
      --includes strong programs to improve the efficiency of our
            electricity generating systems and increase the efficiency of
            energy use in the buildings, industrial, and transportation
            sectors;
      --seeks technological solutions to concerns about global climate
            change and the emission of pollutants associated with energy
            use; and
      --protects the environment in all phases of the energy cycle from the
            extraction of fuels to the ultimate disposal of the byproducts.
                         projected use of fossil fuels
        Fossil fuels have been the mainstay of the world's energy supplies
    for the past 150 years. It is well established that carbon dioxide
    concentrations have increased by 30 percent since pre-industrial times
    and that the energy industry contributes 80 percent of the
    anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. Less well established is the
    cause and effect relationship between CO2 emissions and
    global climate change and also the timing and magnitude of these
    changes with respect to our increased use of fossil fuels.
        Globally, energy use is likely to triple or quadruple in the next
    100 years to meet a growing world population and associated economic
    aspirations. Fossil fuels will provide the bulk of this new energy.
    Even with a 30-fold increase in the use of renewable energy
    technologies by 2050, fossil fuels will dominate the energy supply and
    demand well into the next century.
        ASME issued a general position paper on Technology Implications for
    the U.S. of the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emission Goals in February 1999.
    Among the paper's conclusions was that the development and deployment
    of a broad suite of conversion and utilization technologies must be
    dramatically accelerated to meet the Kyoto goals. We also concluded
    that a time scale longer than that proposed by the Kyoto Protocol would
    be needed to achieve these goals, even with accelerated programs.
        To mitigate the potential consequences of increased carbon dioxide
    concentrations in the atmosphere, we believe it is prudent to look at
    ways to reduce CO2 emissions by:
      --improving the efficiency of energy production and utilization;
      --moving to less carbon-intensive fuels; and,
      --capturing or sequestering carbon dioxide emissions
        Any climate change strategy will fail unless longer-term, advanced
    fossil energy technologies are part of the solution. Our fossil fuel
    programs must take a longer-term view, perhaps as far out as 2050. A
    shorter-term focus prohibits the development of effective technologies
    for the long-term use of fossil fuels. The Department of Energy's
    Comprehensive National Energy Strategy must include recognition of the
    inevitable increased use of fossil fuels by our international
    neighbors, such as China and India. We therefore urge your support for
    fossil fuel technologies which we can export internationally, thereby
    ensuring the vitality of our national energy industries while acting as
    responsible global citizens in promoting overall reductions in carbon
    dioxide emissions. We also note that meeting our future energy needs in
    a manner consistent with national and global well-being will require
    development of a broad suite of technologies ranging from renewables to
    nuclear energy, in addition to fossil energy. We advocate fuel
    diversity, both with respect to different types of fossil fuels and
    with respect to other energy generation technologies.
        We also support legislation such as S. 296, which would authorize
    the doubling of federal investments in civilian energy R&D over the
    next 11 years.
                             fossil energy programs
        We are disappointed that the Administration has recommended less
    fossil energy funding research this year compared to last year's
    appropriations. The Administration's budget is also $31 million less
    than recommended by the PCAST study on Federal Energy R& D for the
    Challenges of the 21st Century. ASME's Energy Committee last year
    issued a position paper analyzing the PCAST study, concluding that
    significant funding increases above the PCAST recommendations are
    required for fossil energy R&D.
        Given the current and projected dominance of fossil energy use
    compared to other fuels, small improvements in fossil energy technology
    can yield large environmental and economic benefits. We therefore
    recommend increased funding for the following fossil energy programs in
    excess of the Administration's budget request:
    Vision 21
        We urge your continued support for this integrative program that
    makes efficient use of a wide range of fuel feedstocks to produce
    electricity, steam, chemicals, hydrogen, transportation fuels, and
    useful byproducts. With carbon sequestration, these Vision 21 plants
    can have virtually zero discharges, and thus eliminate concerns about
    increased carbon dioxide emissions. We recommend fiscal year 2000
    funding in the range of $50--$100 million for Vision 21 programs, with
    levels approaching $150 million in the out years. Funding for carbon
    sequestration should be increased to $25 million for fiscal year 2000
    with levels of $50 million per year in the out years.
    Advanced research
        We also recommend advanced research to develop better materials, to
    develop newer advanced cycles using natural gas, coal, or syngas for
    energy production, and to produce liquid transportation fuels, which
    have fewer emissions.
    Clean coal technologies
        We advocate the deployment of Clean Coal Technologies and urge
    consideration for programs which provide incentives for deployment of
    these technologies both nationally and abroad. We recommend investments
    in developing intermediate range turbines to increase the
    competitiveness of US manufacturers in this area.
    Fuel cell R&D
        We are particularly disappointed in the Administration's proposed
    reduction in fuel cell R&D. These advanced technologies have the
    potential for providing major new power generation alternatives for the
    US and abroad. We recommend an additional $10 million for fiscal year
    2000.
    Methane hydrates and oil R&D
        We recommend that research on methane hydrates be emphasized since
    these vast energy resources could provide a major source of natural
    gas, a less carbon-intensive fuel. We also recommend support for oil
    technology programs to assist our smaller producers to increase their
    production capability, thereby maintaining domestic employment and
    increasing our national energy security through enhanced recovery
    programs.
    Climate change initiatives
        We recommend that government-wide initiatives in addressing climate
    change and carbon sequestration be coordinated under the Office of
    Fossil Energy.
                        programs in energy conservation
        Emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to increase in several
    energy sectors in the future, particularly the transportation sector,
    whose emissions are expected to increase nearly 50 percent over the
    next fifty years. At a strategic level, we recommend:
      --continued emphasis on developing more energy efficient
            transportation vehicles and the increased use of alternative
            fuels lower in carbon intensity which emit fewer pollutants;
      --research in new materials and vehicle designs to increase fuel
            efficiency; and
      --continued cooperation of the Office of Transportation Technologies,
            the Office of Industrial Technologies, and the Office of Fossil
            Energy in developing new fuels and chemicals.
        We support for the Administration's funding request for the Office
    of Transportation Technologies.
        Energy Conservation R&D funding levels proposed by the
    Administration generally remain below those recommended by PCAST. The
    Energy Committee believes the potential for systemic efficiency
    improvement in the industrial sector is neglected in the DOE's Energy
    Conservation budget request, which proposes only a 3.1 percent increase
    compared to the 25-50 percent increases proposed for the other sectors.
    The Industries of the Future Program offers much promise in developing
    energy efficient processes which are also environmentally friendly. We
    support continued funding for these programs, especially in
    crosscutting areas such as advanced materials, combustion, and reduced
    carbon emissions. We recommend increased funding to a minimum of $180
    million for fiscal year 2000 for programs administered by the Office of
    Industrial Technologies.
        While the Energy Committee believes substantial increases in
    funding are necessary for the buildings sector, we are concerned that
    the proposed increases for building technology may invite expenditures
    that would be more prudently allocated by budget growth over a more
    extended period.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the National Corn
    Growers Association representing 30,000 corn growers in 48 states,
    appreciates this opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with our
    recommendations regarding the fiscal year (FY) 2000 Interior
    appropriations bill. Thank you for your leadership in ensuring that
    start-up funding for the agriculture vision, the ``Renewables Vision'',
    was included in the fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill. This
    year, we, strongly, urge you to provide $10 million for the Department
    of Energy's PlanVCrop-Based Renewable Resources Vision 2020 research
    program (Renewables Vision) that is funded under the Industries of the
    Future (Specific) program within the Energy Conservation budget.
        The fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill provided,
    approximately, $2 million to execute research in bio-based renewable
    feedstocks to support the Renewables Vision. The Administration
    includes $4 million for the program in the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request. While we appreciate the Administration's recognition of the
    importance of this program, we believe that $4 million is insufficient
    to accomplish the minimum objectives of the Renewables Vision.
                      background on the renewables vision
        To increase energy efficiency and boost long-term competitiveness,
    the U.S. agricultural, forestry, and chemical communities began
    working, in 1996, with the Office of Industrial Technology (OIT) at the
    Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a long-term, strategic vision
    based on increased utilization of renewable inputs for basic, chemical
    building blocks. In February 1998, the unique, broad-based coalition of
    growers, manufacturers, environmentalists, academicians, and state and
    Federal governmental agencies unveiled a long-term, strategic vision
    called the ``PlanVCrop-based Renewable Resources 2020'' (Renewables
    Vision). The coalition agreed to work towards achieving significant
    increases in the use of crops, trees, and agricultural wastes as
    feedstocks to produce a wide range of everyday consumer goods and
    industrial products.
        The vision is to provide continued economic growth, healthy
    standards of living, and strong national security through the
    development of planVcrop-based (often referred to as ``big-based'')
    renewable resources that are a viable supplement to non-renewable,
    diminishing fossil fuels. The principal goal of the Renewables Vision
    is for renewable big-products to capture 10 percent of the basic
    chemical building blocks market by 2020 and to achieve 50 percent of
    that market by 2050. Gaining 10 percent of the market would represent a
    five-fold increase from today's tiny market share of these basic,
    chemical building blocks. The Renewables Vision envisages supplementing
    petroleum with big-based renewables as sources of material inputs that
    can be used as industrial building blocks to create a wide range of
    consumer products.
        In addition to the principal goal stated above, vision goals
    include:
      --Establishing plant-based (i.e., crop, forestry, and processing)
            systems with efficient conversion processes that allow an
            economically viable and environmentally sensitive manufacturing
            platform for selected products by 2020; and
      --Building collaborative partnerships among industrial stakeholders,
            growers, producers, academia, and federal and state governments
            to develop small-to large-scale commercial applications that
            improve integration along the value-added processing and
            manufacturing chain.
        Accomplishing these goals will help to cut costs, decrease our
    dependence on oil imports, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase
    recycling opportunities, and create world-class industries here at home
    and revitalize our rural economies.
        Due to the volatility in oil prices, the power of unstable oil
    exporting countries affects the price of gasoline and many consumer
    goods, such as plastics, given our ever-increasing reliance on imported
    oil. The U.S., currently, imports more than 50 percent of domestic
    petroleum consumption, and, by 2020, net imports are expected to grow
    to over 65 percent. To ensure sustainable economic growth, the U.S.
    needs a secure, long-term supply of durable, high-performance raw
    material inputs. Both renewable resources and non-renewable basic
    building block resources for industrial production will be needed in
    the future.
        While we have a finite supply of fossil fuels, we have abundant
    planVcrop-based resources, in the U.S., that are renewable over short
    periods of time (e.g., annual and perennial crops). Renewable
    materials, from American-grown crops, trees, and agricultural wastes
    can provide many of the same basic, chemical building blocks as
    petrochemicals, and can provide others that petrochemicals cannot.
    Using historical, average prices for corn and oil, the cost of carbon
    from corn approaches the cost of carbon from oil.
        To achieve the bold vision, we must begin laying the research
    foundation today. If we are to realize, fully, the potential for big-
    based resources as a supplement to fossil fuels, we need new routes for
    more efficient processing and utilization as well as a whole range of
    plant-derived building blocks. New technologies require time to develop
    and implement. Now is the time for significant research and development
    on what renewable sources and novel processes might be available, and
    for beginning to develop selection criteria among the possible
    alternatives.
        After the Renewables Vision was unveiled in 1998, work on a
    technology roadmap began. Inputs were gathered from two workshops with
    scientific and marketing experts from a broad range of disciplines. The
    roadmap, published in February 1999, identifies performance goals and
    establishes a focused research and development agenda for developing
    the technologies needed to make the industry vision a reality. The
    technology roadmap identified research needs in four major research
    categories. For each of these categories, the top priority is--
      --Plant Science--understand gene regulation and control of plant
            metabolic pathways;
      --Production--alter plants to produce components of interest rather
            than heterogeneous seeds;
      --Processing--develop new separations methods--membranes,
            distillation, etc.; and
      --Utilization--understand structure function relationships for plant
            constituents (protein, starch, etc).
        We do not expect all of this research to be funded under the
    Interior appropriations bill. OIT funds will be for projects that
    address its mission of improving energy efficiency and environmental
    performance. Fulfilling the vision of a big-based economy will require
    vast resources from numerous public and private organizations. A
    coordinated, industry-led effort, operating under the auspices of the
    Industries of the Future program will help us achieve the goals of the
    Renewables Vision.
                       status of fiscal year 1999 awards
        The OIT, working with the industry partners, is in the process of
    distributing the fiscal year 1999 funds through a competitive
    solicitation. Industry executives have created an executive steering
    group to help guide the process and review potential areas of research.
    A request for proposals was issued in early February 1999. The deadline
    for submitting proposals is April 23, 1999.
        For fiscal year 1999, the focus will be on a few, selected
    priorities in the processing and utilization categories identified in
    the Technology Roadmap. All proposals must be ``multi-institutional''
    (i.e., at least two organizations must be involved in the proposed
    research) and a 50 percent cost-share is required. It is anticipated
    that the DOE will award 3 to 6 cooperative agreements with total
    funding per project ranging between $200,000 to $600,000 per year for a
    two or three year period.
                                   conclusion
        Increased population, coupled with rising demands for consumer
    products and finite fossil fuels, will require us to increase,
    substantially, the amount of bio-based feedstocks for industrial
    production if we are to meet these needs and demands. At the same time,
    we must decrease our reliance on unstable foreign oil supplies. We are
    at a unique place in history in that the tools are beginning to be
    available that will revolutionize the American and global economies and
    ensure that future demand is met with the increasing use of renewable
    resources as basic, chemical building blocks. Today, the 21St Century
    is referred to often as the ``Biology Century'' because genomics (i.e.,
    the science of identifying the location and function of genes), coupled
    with biotechnology, is ushering in a new age of innovation in plant-
    based technologies that will revolutionize the American and world
    economies. We will be able to meet the challenges of the 21St century
    much sooner if we focus our efforts towards the ambitious Renewables
    Vision and act now to fund much needed research.
        Multi-disciplinary research, along several different pathways, will
    be necessary to improve the performance of plant resources as raw
    materials. For the long-term success of the program, it is critical
    that research in the broad, major research categories, identified in
    the roadmap, be coordinated and integrated to ensure that progress is
    made on all fronts. With a significant increase in appropriations for
    the OIT Renewables Vision, funding could be provided for projects that
    address the highest priorities in each of the four major research
    categories listed in the roadmap, not just in plant utilization and
    processing. Support could begin for projects that show clear linkages
    across all of the major research categories in the roadmap.
        We, strongly, urge you to provide a minimum of $10 million for
    fiscal year 2000 for OIT to implement, more fully, the technology
    roadmap. The agriculture team at OIT has a unique research and
    development focus and a decision-making process that relies heavily on
    funding high priority research targets developed by industry partners.
    This funding will help to ensure that we can meet the ever-increasing
    world demand for basic, chemical building blocks by using plant and
    crop-based feedstocks. We look forward to working with you as we lay
    the foundation for renewable chemical building blocks.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Conn Abnee, Executive Director, Geothermal Heat
                                Pump Consortium
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present my testimony to you today. My name is Conn Abnee
    and I am the executive director of the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium
    (GHPC). The Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium is a non-profit, public-
    private partnership between the Department of Energy, electric
    utilities serving over one-half the residential meters in the United
    States, geothermal heat pump manufacturers, energy service companies,
    drillers and mechanical contracto rs. Well over 800 organizations are
    part of this effort, which is a central feature of the Administration's
    Climate Challenge Program.
        Under Climate Challenge, DOE and the private partners, pledged to
    move forward on a comprehensive program to dramatically boost consumer
    acceptance and installations of geothermal heat pumps in recognition of
    the tremendous energy savings to consumers and environmental benefits
    through reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The private partners
    agreed to match DOE contributions on a two for one basis.
        To date, GHPC's program under its grant from DOE has focused on
    numerous activities designed to strengthen the industry=s
    infrastructure and jumpstart the technology into the marketplace. We've
    supported short-term R&D to generate better information about the
    benefits of geothermal heat pumps and to ensure more successful and
    cost-effective applications. For example, research on products used in
    the installation process resulted in an enhanced product that will lead
    to more cost-effective installations. We've co-funded market
    mobilization demonstration programs to help utilities and their
    subsidiary energy service companies learn how to deploy the technology
    during a period of rapid electric industry restructuring. Over 30
    projects have been successfully implemented throughout the United
    States. We've supported a training and technology transfer program to
    ensure a growing infrastructure of trained designers and installers. In
    1997, GHPC established six centers that have already trained over 1,000
    technicians. We also implemented a design assistance program to help
    customers, particularly schools and owners of commercial facilities,
    understand that geothermal heat pump systems are the most cost-
    effective pollution prevention technology for their facilities. To
    date, over 80 percent of the projects that have chosen a heating and
    cooling system will use GeoExchange technology. Through these
    approaches, GHPC has played a lead role in increasing market deployment
    of geothermal heat pump technology.
              geothermal heat pumps: a unique renewable technology
        Geothermal heat pump technology, also known as GeoExchange, is a
    renewable technology that uses the Earth as a source and sink for
    energy to heat and cool buildings, and to heat water. GeoExchange
    systems do this through the use of direct connections to the ground or
    surface waters--usually closed water/antifreeze loops that transfer
    heat back and forth between the ground and a building without depleting
    or affecting groundwater resources. The loops consist of polyethylene
    piping, which are laid out in shallow vertical wells, horizontal
    trenches, or in ponds. GeoExchange systems can operate in virtually all
    climates and soils--tapping a resource that is right under our feet in
    our own backyards and parking lots.
        There are over 400,000 GeoExchange installations in North America
    to date. GeoExchange systems are used in homes and commercial
    applications, bringing economic benefits to businesses ranging from
    hotels and resorts, to large and small office buildings, to schools,
    and to restaurants and convenience stores.
        The GHPC and the DOE are beginning a new phase of the partnership
    with many of the fundamental building blocks necessary for market
    acceptance of this new technology being established and fundamental R&D
    having been completed. Over the last three years, the GeoExchange
    industry has shown remarkable growth, largely due to the programs put
    in place by the Consortium. Though GeoExchange technology represents
    less than one percent of the overall heating and cooling market,
    installations have increased by 20 percent in each of the three years.
    Through that success, the focus of DOE and the Consortium is shifting
    toward a more market segment specific program.
                              energy smart schools
        The Consortium's focused approach would target specific market
    segments in the commercial sector that can lead to continued growth in
    the industry and increased economic, energy and environmental benefits
    for the nation. Last fall, the Secretary of Energy announced the Energy
    Smart Schools program, an initiative to reduce school energy costs and
    redirect savings towards children's education. There is no heating and
    cooling technology in the market today that can demonstrate such
    significant energy cost savings and other benefits than GeoExchange.
    Even before this initiative was announced, the Consortium had been
    focused on working with school systems to show them how energy costs
    can be reduced with this technology. We have had remarkable success in
    gaining school system acceptance of our technology. There are now more
    than 500 school installations across the country using GeoExchange.
        We believe that the Energy Smart Schools program can have true
    success at achieving dramatic reductions in energy costs. Schools using
    GeoExchange are realizing savings of 25-40 percent annually on their
    heating and cooling bills. At Kittitas Middle School in Kittitas,
    Washington their GeoExchange system has led to a significant reduction
    in energy consumption and maintenance costs. In addition, the school is
    able to maintain constant temperatures in both the classrooms and the
    gymnasium, creating a pleasant environment for both staff and students.
    And the science and administration buildings at Whitman College in
    Walla, Walla both use GeoExchange systems.
        While we do not believe we are the only solution to reducing school
    energy costs, we do believe that the Consortium is ideally qualified to
    play a major role in the Energy Smart Schools program. Working with DOE
    to advance the Energy Smart Schools initiative is the logical outgrowth
    of our work over the past three years. But to be successful, it will
    require a well constructed, concentrated program with dedicated
    funding. To accomplish those goals, we are seeking an appropriation of
    $6.5 million in energy conservation building technology funds.
        With those funds, we will be able to build on our existing
    infrastructure and conduct a more comprehensive program to boost
    acceptance of this new technology and to increase installations in the
    commercial market, and especially the school market by conducting the
    following activities:
      --Market education
      --Strategic outreach to commercial customers, such as school
            superintendents and school board officials
      --Design assistance and feasibility analysis
      --Training for engineers and architects
      --Design conferences and workshops with DOE
      --Business planning assistance for utilities and energy service
            companies to promote GeoExchange without expensive rebates or
            other subsidies.
        You may be interested to know that there is alot of GeoExchange
    activity in Washington. Other facilities that are saving significantly
    on their energy bills are the county jail and the Tower building in
    Yakima, Grant County Courthouse in Ephrata, the city hall in North
    Bonneville, the City Light building in Tacoma, and Prairie Electric's
    office building in Vancouver. In addition, there are numerous
    installation companies in the state that have increased their bottom
    line by incorporating GeoExchange technology into their business.
        Mr. Chairman, at the Consortium, we have gained valuable experience
    and demonstrated real success at moving toward the Administration's
    goals of dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We look
    forward to helping school systems improve classroom comfort, make
    significant reductions in their utility costs related to heating and
    cooling and enabling them to redirect their investments into books and
    computers. Thank you for considering our request. We hope you will
    direct DOE's support for phase 2 of our program.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Council for Chemical Research
                                     issue
        The mission of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Industrial
    Technologies (OIT) is to help U.S. industries realize substantial
    improvements in energy efficiency, waste reduction, and productivity.
    OIT acts as a leading federal interface for the Nation's major process
    industries (chemicals, agriculture, aluminum, mining, forest products,
    steel, metal casting, glass, and petroleum refining). Focused by key
    technology roadmaps, OIT funds high-risk, cost-shared, industry-driven
    cooperative R&D through the partnerships of the ``Industries of the
    Future'' program. The leveraging of resources represented by this
    program is an important element to ensure the competitiveness of these
    industries in global markets.
                                    position
        The Council for Chemical Research (CCR) believes that the full
    potential of the ``Industries of the Future'' program can be realized
    through appropriate funding levels deployed in ways that recognize the
    different nature of all the industries involved. In all cases,
    substantial leverage is obtained by catalyzing productive interactions
    between industrial, academic, and government laboratories. Leveraging
    may be accomplished by the development of technology roadmaps,
    investment in pre-competitive and crosscutting technologies, and the
    development and demonstration of advanced technologies beyond the
    normal risk profile of industrial companies themselves.
        CCR reaffirms its conviction that improved industrial technologies
    are critical to the Nation's future, that R&D aimed at long-term goals
    is essential, and that the chemical sciences and engineering play a key
    role in a broad range of new technologies for the Nation's major
    process industries. As a high-leverage contribution to these goals, the
    Council for Chemical Research fully supports the Administration's
    fiscal year 2000 request of $171 million for the Office of Industrial
    Technologies.
        Because of the complexity, size, and diversity of the chemical
    industry (more than 7,300 companies in SIC Code 28), CCR believes that
    additional and continuing activities to develop and renew the research
    agenda of Vision 2020 should be funded within the fiscal year 2000
    request. Specific research programs should be funded in areas where
    technology roadmaps have been developed, including polymers and other
    materials, catalysis, separations, bioprocessing, computational
    techniques, and advanced measurement and control.
                                   rationale
        Industry uses more than a third of the energy delivered in the U.S.
    and spends tens of billions of dollars annually for pollution abatement
    and control. Seven industries account for 82 percent of the energy used
    in manufacturing: pulp and paper; steel; aluminum; metal casting;
    chemicals; petroleum refining; and stone, clay and glass. These
    industries also account for more than 80 percent of the air emissions
    and 90 percent of the waste produced by U.S. manufacturing. The Office
    of Industrial Technologies focuses on developing innovative
    technologies to assist major industry sectors in becoming more resource
    efficient and, by that, more productive and competitive, and less
    polluting.
        Despite its modest funding, the ``Industries of the Future''
    framework plays a key role and exerts high leverage for the development
    of needed technologies. OIT's initiatives bring different perspectives
    together on the appropriate research agenda, stimulate collaborative
    programs, and help develop and demonstrate innovative technologies
    beyond the risk tolerance and horizons of the chemical industry today,
    but needed for Vision 2020. At the same time, ownership of the fully
    developed technologies will reside appropriately in the private sector,
    which will make the necessary investment when it is economically
    attractive.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas
                           introduction and overview
        This testimony is presented on behalf of the Electric Vehicle
    Association of the Americas (EVAA), a national non-profit organization
    of electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, state and local
    governments and other entities that have joined together to advocate
    greater use of electricity as a transportation fuel. Recently, the EVAA
    consolidated with the Electric Transportation Coalition (ETC), and our
    new organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is now the single,
    united voice for the use of electricity in the transportation sector. A
    membership list of the newly combined EVAA and ETC is attached.
        A principal activity of the EVAA is to encourage the adoption of
    incentive-based policies and programs to support the development of a
    widespread and sustainable market for electric modes of transportation
    for use in on-road and off-road applications. Electric vehicles (EVs)
    provide significant environmental, energy security and energy
    efficiency benefits. For example, EVs offer significant reductions in
    VOCs and NOX, the major precursors to ozone. In addition,
    widespread use of energy efficient EVs would help to reduce
    transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, EVs can be
    domestically produced from a wide variety of fuel feedstocks. This
    domestic orientation offers an important energy security advantage at a
    time when the U.S. is importing more than one-half the oil it consumes.
        After many years of research and development, all of the world's
    major automobile manufacturers, as well as several independent small
    businesses, have EVs available to the marketplace. Not surprisingly,
    these vehicles are expensive. Until greater volumes are achieved, the
    price of EVs is likely to remain high. The EVAA urges the Congress to
    assist industry by helping to reduce the cost to the early purchasers
    of EVs. By increasing the number of vehicles sold or used, the price of
    these emissions-free modes of transportation will decrease. In addition
    to federal government assistance to Agrow the numbers@ of EVs on the
    road, the EVAA also supports current DOE programs that will result in
    the testing and demonstration of products, the improvement of
    components for EVs, particularly batteries, and the cost reductions
    attained by these R&D activities.
        More specifically, the EVAA believes the role of the federal
    government is essentially four-fold: to continue to participate with
    industry in efforts to advance electric transportation technologies
    through programs like the United States Advanced Battery Consortium
    (USABC); to join industry in the test and evaluation of the latest EV
    technologies through programs like the Department of Energy (DOE) Field
    Test and Evaluation Program; to work with communities and industry to
    facilitate deployment of the infrastructure required to support the
    convenient and safe operation of EV; and, to use the purchasing power
    of the federal government to initiate the market for EVs by acquiring
    commercially-available products for federal agency fleets.
        The EVAA urges the Subcommittee to provide funding to a number of
    DOE programs essential to the development of EVs. The partnership of
    the federal government will help industry successfully introduce clean
    transportation technologies to the market, and will further the
    national policy objective of increasing clean, domestic and alternative
    fuel use.
                         industry goals and objectives
        Four years ago, the ETC adopted a strategic business plan to assure
    the successful commercial launch of electric vehicles. The ``EV Ready
    Market Launch Framework'' calls for the building of a partnership among
    the automobile industry, the electric utility industry, the federal
    government, and several key communities around the U.S. to establish
    the basis for a long-term and sustainable market for EVs. The goal of
    the plan is to demonstrate the viability of EVs through the successful
    deployment of up to 5000 EVs in eleven urban areas. To achieve this
    goal, the Framework focuses on insuring the purchase and placement of
    vehicles and preparing the infrastructure systems in eleven target
    communities to support EVs. Under the plan, ``infrastructure'' is
    defined to encompass not only charging systems, but also financial and
    non-financial incentives, training, code and standard modifications,
    and public awareness. The six principal elements of the Framework are:
      --Initiation of a commercial demonstration of up to 5000 electric
            vehicles in up to eleven urban jurisdictions;
      --Government (federal, state and local) purchase agreed-upon number
            of vehicles in each urban area;
      --Utilities in selected areas purchase agreed-upon number of vehicles
            and secure investment of up to $2,000 per vehicle for charging
            infrastructure;
      --Vehicle manufacturers make available, and support the sale of,
            electric vehicles;
      --Seek to ensure that one-half of the vehicles placed into the eleven
            urban areas are equipped with advanced batteries and/or other
            enabling technologies; and,
      --Seek a $10,000 per vehicle government incentive for EV purchases.
              role of doe in meeting industry goals and objectives
        A number of the on-going DOE EV-related programs are providing
    critical support to the success of this efficient and clean
    transportation technology. These DOE programs complement and augment
    other work that is being undertaken by industry separately or in
    partnership with other federal agencies. If fiscal year 2000
    appropriations for these DOE programs are significantly reduced or
    eliminated, the requirements for funding would fall to other parties
    who may not be able to increase investments even further in order to
    move this technology into the marketplace. The important DOE programs
    supporting EV development include the following:
                 the united states advanced battery consortium
        The Coalition supports funding for the USABC at the $11 million
    level requested by the Administration. The USABC is a battery research
    and development program critical to the advancement of EVs. Full-size
    battery packs and their components, such as cells and modules, are
    being developed through research contracts and then tested by the
    developers, U.S. automobile companies, and national laboratories.
    Battery packs also have been installed in prototype EVs being operated
    at electric utilities and testing facilities of U.S. automobile
    companies. It is important to note that without the limited federal
    assistance already invested, the advancements in battery technology
    accomplished to date through the USABC probably would not have been
    achieved. Individually, companies cannot, or are unwilling to, make the
    significant investment required to conduct advanced battery research.
    Largely as a result of the USABC partnership, all of the major
    automobile manufacturers have announced that nickel metal-hydride
    batteries will be offered in 1999 EV models.
        An increase in FY2000 funding for the Electric Vehicle R&D program
    will fund research, development and validation testing of lithium-based
    batteries and initiate a third phase development with the USABC. An
    important goal for the Electric Vehicle R&D program in FY2000 is to
    complete extended testing of USABC long-term, lithium-polymer batteries
    to determine battery life and safety under accident conditions.
         funding for the hybrid propulsion systems development program
        The EVAA supports the efforts of industry and the federal
    government to develop affordable hybrid vehicles with high fuel economy
    and ultra-low emissions. DOE's Hybrid Systems R&D fiscal year 2000
    goals include testing to meet high power energy storage requirements,
    demonstration of improvements in fuel efficiency, and reductions in
    particulate and oxides of nitrogen emissions. The long-term goal of the
    hybrid propulsion systems development program continues to be
    development of a production prototype hybrid electric vehicle that will
    meet the PNGV goal of 80 miles per gallon in 2004.
           funding for the vehicle field test and evaluation program
        The Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas adopted specific,
    targeted goals in 1998 to assure adequate penetration of EVs in key
    target markets throughout the United States. One key sector targeted
    for EV acquisitions is federal agency fleets. The U.S. Department of
    Energy, through the Secretary of Energy Federico Pena, committed to
    facilitate the purchase and use of up to 500 EVs in these federal
    fleets. With assistance from EVAA and the Edison Electric Institute,
    the DOE has initiated a Federal Electric Vehicle Acquisition (FEVA)
    Program as a means to assure that the federal government reaches its
    commitment to acquire 500 EVs. The FEVA Program is targeted to the
    placement of EVs in federal agency fleets operating in key Market
    Launch communities. To achieve this end, electric utilities have
    stepped forward to ``manage'' EVs that have been acquired by the DOE.
    Each participating utility is managing up to 5 EVs that are being
    placed into the fleets of participating government agencies. In 1998,
    awards were issued to six electric utilities that are participating in
    the program: the Potomac Electric Power Company, Southern California
    Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Virginia Power, Georgia
    Power, and Boston Edison. The electric utilities in these areas are
    providing the service and supporting infrastructure for the vehicles.
    Some of the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program monies are used
    to fund the costs associated with the lease or purchase of the EVs used
    in the program, or to fund the administrative costs associated with
    each electric utility's program. The vehicles are managed by the local
    utility and are loaned B free of charge B to interested federal
    agencies. Once those federal agencies use the vehicles they are then
    encouraged to place orders to acquire their own EVs. The Department of
    Energy will assist those federal agencies by supporting the difference
    in costs to the agency associated with the EV.
        The FEVA Program is bringing results. For example, 20 federal
    agencies in Washington, D.C. have been loaned Ford Electric Rangers,
    including the Departments of Energy and the Interior, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the Smithsonian, the Architect of the Capitol. As a
    direct result of the FEVA program, federal agencies in the Washington,
    D.C. area are procuring EVs for use in their fleets.
        Importantly, the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program also
    provides funding to federal agencies to cover the incremental cost for
    purchase or lease of an electric vehicle. As of this writing, federal
    agencies throughout the U.S. have requested funding from the Department
    of Energy to cover the incremental cost of approximately 150 EVs that
    the agencies are seeking to place in their fleets. While these orders
    are encouraging, much more should be done. Indeed, federal law (Public
    Law 102-486) requires federal fleets to transition to alternative fuels
    and these fleet conversions have been far short of statutory
    requirements. Department of Energy must be encouraged to do more.
        With 500 EVs as the target, the EVAA urges the Congress to insure
    that the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program has sufficient
    funding to accomplish the following:
      --adequate financial resources to support federal agency requests to
            provide funding to cover the incremental cost differences for
            as many as 350 EVs purchased or leased by these federal
            agencies, with contracts for these vehicles to be made before
            the end of this calendar year;
      --appropriations to support up to 5 additional Market Launch
            communities to participate in the on-going FEVA program, which
            includes the acquisition of up to 30 EVs for use by the
            participating utilities, as well as support of those utilities
            for the costs incurred in administering the program; and,
      --appropriations adequate to support the efforts of the U.S. Postal
            Service as more fully described below.
        Earlier this year, the United States Postal Service (USPS) issued a
    solicitation for 500 electric powered carrier route vehicles in 1999,
    with options for another 5,500 additional vehicles. The contract for
    the first 500 EVs is valued at approximately $17 million, or $34,000
    per unit. The USPS represents an important guaranteed market for EVs
    and the Department of Energy should be encouraged to provide adequate
    funding to cover the incremental costs for these vehicles.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $4
    million for the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program. The key to
    successful deployment of this new technology is now widespread use. The
    greater the number of vehicles, or use of EV components, the more
    likely we will be able to reduce costs and increase consumer
    confidence. Therefore, EVAA requests an increase of $2.5 million to the
    Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program to fund the incremental costs
    of EV acquisitions like those planned by the United States Postal
    Service. Further, DOE should consider supporting large scale
    demonstrations of electric bikes and scooters in municipal government
    operations (e.g., police departments.) Not only will this improve air
    quality, and increase exposure of the technology to potential new
    customers, these types of programs assist in bringing down the cost of
    batteries--a major barrier to the successful commercial launch of
    electric modes of transportation. Whereas the Vehicle Field Test and
    Evaluation Program is slated to fund a variety of EV-related activities
    at the Department of Energy, EVAA believes the funds could be best
    utilized by meeting the goals and commitments that industry and
    government agreed to under the EV Market Launch Framework (i.e., the
    placement of a significant number of electric vehicles in the federal
    fleet.)
        Further, to expedite the acquisition of EVs by federal agencies,
    innovative leasing arrangements should be encouraged. For example, EVAA
    applauds General Services Administration (GSA) efforts to provide a
    ``pass through'' lease program with the federal agencies. Through this
    program, GSA signs a lease with the participating automobile
    manufacturer, and the federal agency interested in leasing an EV then
    signs a lease with GSA. This allows the federal agencies to continue
    their relationship with GSA, an agency the federal agencies have worked
    with for many years.
                other department of energy programs of interest
        In addition to the programs outlined above, the Association also
    supports funding to a number of other AFV programs administered by the
    DOE.
        To assure that the marketplace is prepared and receptive to new
    forms of transportation like EVs, the Association encourages full
    funding, at the levels requested by the Administration, of DOE's
    programs designed to create an infrastructure for alternative fuel
    vehicles, including EVs, and to build public awareness and confidence
    in these new modes of transportation. These funds include $10.7 million
    for the Clean Cities program to support the demonstration of
    alternative fuel and advanced vehicle technologies and $2 million for
    the EPACT Replacement Fuels Program to track and improve compliance
    with EPACT alternative fuel vehicle programs. Further, EVAA supports
    the $41.4 million in funding being requested by the Administration for
    continuation of research and development on fuel cell technologies that
    can be incorporated into advanced transportation technologies. These
    various activities by DOE encourage investment by industry and help to
    build market acceptance for alternative fuel vehicles.
                                   conclusion
        Recent highly publicized examples of successful AFV models have
    highlighted the possibilities associated with these DOE programs. While
    these recent successes demonstrate the progress being made with regard
    to AFV technologies, now is the critical time to use partnerships with
    the federal government to develop markets for these products and reduce
    the costs associated with these cutting edge technologies. The DOE
    programs mentioned in this testimony are essential to bringing
    affordable EVs to the public, and the EVAA strongly urges the
    Subcommittee's support.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
                                  introduction
        The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) is pleased to
    offer its views on the role of government in support of energy
    research, development, and deployment (RD&D) as it relates to energy
    efficiency programs at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The BCSE is
    a diverse group of companies and industry trade associations; our
    members include manufacturers, energy producers, suppliers,
    distributors, and energy service companies. The Council supports energy
    policies and programs that enhance the nation's economic,
    environmental, and national security goals through the rapid
    development and deployment of clean and efficient energy technologies.
        The Council supports the Administration's fiscal year 2000 request
    for energy efficiency programs. The BCSE believes that the least
    intrusive and most efficient means of addressing environmental
    challenges is to promote cost-shared government-industry partnerships
    to develop clean energy technological solutions. Expanded reliance on
    natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewable energy are the three
    pillars of a more secure and sustainable energy strategy that will help
    strengthen the U.S. economy and clean up the environment.
        The federal government's energy efficiency programs are as diverse
    as the activities that consume energy. Given their breadth, the BCSE
    will not attempt to address all of DOE's energy efficiency programs.
    Rather, we would like to focus on several programs that the BCSE
    believes illustrate the value of the federal government's energy
    efficiency effort.
                       gas turbine & engine technologies
        Microturbines are small (25 to 300 kilowatt) gas turbines derived
    from automotive and truck turbochargers, auxiliary power units for
    aircraft or tanks, and small jet engines. They are designed for
    distributed generation, combined heat, and power (CHP) and mechanical
    drive prime mover applications. Improvements in materials, ceramic
    components, and aerodynamic design can potentially increase efficiency
    to 35 to 45 percent. This is more efficient than power generated at a
    distant, central-station power plant which suffers losses as it is
    delivered through the electric transmission and distribution grid. By
    recovering exhaust heat, energy consumers can utilize microturbines in
    a CHP application and raise total fuel utilization efficiency to
    greater than 75 percent.
        Microturbines today can contribute to reducing emissions
    (NOX and CO2) associated with electric power
    generation. When fueled by natural gas from our domestic resource base,
    they currently emit NOX at 9 to 40 ppm, which is an
    improvement over the existing U.S. generation fleet. Emissions
    reductions technologies, such as catalytic combustion, offer the
    potential of near zero emissions levels. To achieve the environmental,
    efficiency, and cost-reduction goals of the program, the BCSE
    specifically seeks $2.5 million above DOE's current request of $2.5
    million for microturbine engine development research.
        Advanced reciprocating engine systems (ARES) are the leading
    customer choice for distributed generation and CHP applications in the
    300 to 3000 kilowatt size range and provide significant advances in
    efficient use of natural gas resources while minimizing environmental
    impact levels. This will result in annual NOX emissions
    reductions of 40,000 to 60,000 tons per year and CO2
    emissions reductions of 7.6 to 11.5 million tons. Estimated annual
    savings in unburned natural gas (from improved efficiency) are
    approximately 110 to170 billion cubic feet, which equals the annual
    energy consumption of approximately 1.4 million homes.
        The ARES program will position domestic natural gas engine
    manufacturers to compete effectively against foreign engine producers
    looking to enter the U.S. market as well as further promote and expand
    export markets for high-technology. The BCSE seeks $2 million for this
    research. DOE has not requested funding for this program.
                           alternative fuel vehicles
        Transportation is the fastest growing energy consuming sector. In
    1998, DOE reported that approximately two-thirds of all U.S. petroleum
    consumption was directly attributable to the transportation sector. The
    recent popularity of low fuel economy sport utility vehicles, pickup
    trucks, and vans used for personal transportation, coupled with an
    expanding economy, low fuel prices, increasing numbers of drivers, and
    increasing miles traveled by each vehicle continues to raise the
    nation's overall fuel consumption. Spurred by this increase in demand,
    total domestic petroleum use is expected to increase from approximately
    35 quadrillion btu in 1997 to approximately 48 quadrillion btu in 2020.
    Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)--including natural gas and electric
    vehicles--promise to reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil while
    virtually eliminating emissions of criteria air pollutants. The
    Administration has been very active in promoting its Partnership for a
    New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).
                                   batteries
        Advanced batteries are critical to the success of electric vehicles
    (EVs) and other alternative fueled vehicles. DOE has conducted
    research, in cooperation with the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium that
    has led to significant improvements in battery performance for EVs. One
    of its singular accomplishments was the Ovonic Nickel-Metal Hydride
    (NiMH) electric vehicle battery developed by Ovonic Battery Co., a
    subsidiary of Council member Energy Conversion Devices. The Ovonic EV
    battery has met or exceeded the mid-term performance goals set by the
    Consortium, affirming the future market viability of EV technologies.
    Numerous cars powered by the batteries have far exceeded 200 miles in
    range in on-the-road test drives. The absence of highly toxic battery
    materials is another advantage of this technology. High volume
    production coupled with additional improvements in battery technology
    will enable the batteries to further improve performance as well as
    reach the Consortium cost goals.
        Notwithstanding the success of the NiMH EV battery program, DOE is
    focusing its battery research exclusively on lithium based battery
    technologies. We believe this to be a mistake. NiMH batteries have been
    developed which demonstrate excellent properties for hybrid electric
    vehicles. Yet another application of NiMH batteries is for high
    performance starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries. Increased
    use of power electronics coupled with the need to reduce vehicle weight
    and increase fuel efficiencies in conventional vehicles is creating
    demand for a low weight higher performing SLI battery. NiMH battery
    technology shows great promise in this application. Accordingly, the
    Council recommends that the battery R&D program be expanded to build
    upon the successful NiMH EV battery development program by including
    advanced research for NiMH batteries for EV and other vehicle
    applications.
                              natural gas vehicles
        Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are certified to be up to 99 percent
    cleaner than traditionally fueled vehicles and can reduce emissions of
    carbon monoxide (CO) by 70 percent, non-methane organic gas by 89
    percent, nitrogen oxides (NOX) by 87 percent, and can
    produce 20 percent fewer greenhouse gases than traditionally fueled
    vehicles. In 1992, no original equipment manufacturers offered NGVs for
    sale and few NGV fueling stations were available. Today, over 50 NGV
    models are available and there are over 1300 NGV fueling stations open
    nationwide. Despite this impressive growth, the actual number of NGVs
    on the road is less than one-half of one percent of all registered
    vehicles. Additional research is required to reduce the initial cost of
    NGVs, which will encourage their widespread acceptance by the general
    public.
        While DOE has submitted substantial requests for the Partnership
    for a New Generation of Vehicles program over the past several years,
    the agency has continued to depart from its commitment to a joint five-
    year research plan, developed in response to this Subcommittee's
    request in fiscal year 1997. Accordingly, the BCSE seeks to restore
    funding levels for priorities identified by the industry and DOE's
    five-year plan. DOE requested no funds for the light-duty vehicle
    portion of the plan. $2 million is needed for this program. The plan
    requested $11.1 million for medium and heavy-duty vehicle research, but
    the agency has requested only $8.9 million. The Council requests an
    additional $2.2 million for the program in fiscal year 2000.
                             fuel cell technologies
        Ballard Generation Systems, a BCSE member, will begin field trials
    on a 250 kilowatt natural gas Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) at
    selected sites in the U.S. and internationally in 1999 and 2000. More
    fuel cell power plants of various power sizes will be available in the
    future to fill diverse power generation requirements. High-temperature,
    natural gas fuel cell systems that are presently under development may
    ultimately be able to achieve a 60 percent fuel-to-electricity
    conversion efficiency. This is extremely favorable compared with the
    average of 35 percent fuel-to-electric efficiency for the mix of
    generating equipment currently used to supply the nation's electricity.
        Another key to the successful commercialization of the PEM fuel
    cell vehicle will be the availability of a safe on-board hydrogen
    storage device. Energy Conversion Devices has been developing metal
    hydride alloys to provide a safe solid-state means of on-board storage
    of hydrogen in PEM fuel cell vehicles. Currently, DOE's support for on-
    board storage devices for the PEM fuel cell is negligible. Given the
    importance of this component of the fuel cell system, we would urge
    greater funding levels for metal hydride storage systems for PEM fuel
    cell vehicles. These devices would also be the safest means of storing
    hydrogen in hydrogen powered internal combustion engine or hybrid
    vehicles as well as for use in fuel cells for stationary applications
    and or portable power.
        Further development of all fuel cell types must focus on refining
    system designs to reduce costs, improve performance, and minimize
    maintenance requirements while developing the manufacturing technology
    needed to achieve market pricing. In order for PEM fuel cell power
    plants to achieve full commercial status, the aforementioned challenges
    will need to be overcome. The lessons learned will make U.S. technology
    more competitive in the global marketplace.
        The Council supports the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy's fiscal year 2000 request for PEM fuel cells and the Office of
    Fossil Energy's work on Molten Carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) and Solid
    Oxide fuel cells (SOFC). However, the BCSE opposes DOE's proposal to
    shift $4.95 million from the two MCFC teams and the SOFC program and
    move these funds to its new ``Vision 21'' Internal Gasification
    Combined Cycle (IGCC) program. Similarly, $5.1 million which the
    Department proposes to shift to ``Vision 21'' support activities within
    the Fuel Cell Development Program should be restored to the three
    principal contracts. Without separate funds, the MCFC and SOFC programs
    will, in DOE's own words, be ``stretched out.'' Additionally, the core
    fuel cell research underway is fundamental to any new applications in
    these technologies. Initiating new ``Vision 21'' fuel cell
    applications, while diminishing support for core fuel cell research,
    would appear to be imprudent. Consequently, the Council would like to
    see the funding returned to the original programs so that existing
    schedules can be honored and fundamental research can continue.
                      heat pumps, gas cooling & appliances
        Natural gas cooling technologies are especially energy efficient
    when measured on a life-cycle and/or full-cycle basis. The societal
    benefits of natural gas cooling accrue during the hours of the day and
    months of the year that correspond to the peak demand for electricity.
    The GAX heat pump, based on a generator-absorber heat exchange (GAX)
    cycle, is envisioned as the residential space conditioning technology
    of the future due to its energy efficiency (as much as a 40 percent
    improvement over existing technologies) and low maintenance costs. DOE
    is working with industry to develop commercially feasible GAX heat
    pumps, and a complete prototype was put into full operation at Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory in 1998. By investing in advanced gas cooling
    technologies, U.S. industries will be able to capture the growing
    domestic and global market for clean, efficient technologies. The BCSE
    supports these programs and places great emphasis on robust research
    for the GAX and large commercial chiller programs and systems
    integration of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.
        The Council supports DOE's research and training programs on
    desiccant dehumidification devices. Desiccants offer the option of
    decoupling temperature from humidity loads on a building, thus applying
    exactly the amount of energy needed to satisfy each load independently.
    DOE is participating in the improvement of this potential new market by
    studying the properties of newly developed desiccant materials. Further
    materials characterization, combined with analysis of the effects of
    desiccant wheel structure and mass on desiccant equipment performance,
    offer the potential to improve desiccant system economic effectiveness.
        DOE should also continue its research and development of energy
    efficient appliances in residential and commercial buildings,
    particularly those that utilize alternative fuels. There is an inherent
    conflict between national increased efficiency requirements and
    consumers' desire for lower first-cost equipment. Increased-efficiency
    systems, while offering lower energy costs and (usually) lower life-
    cycle costs, are increasingly more complex and more expensive than
    lower-efficiency equipment. Increased research is needed to solve this
    paradox between efficiency requirements and consumer desires.
        In addition to balancing the energy efficiency needs of new
    appliances with consumers' demands, DOE should educate consumers about
    the benefits of purchasing high-efficiency appliances, both to
    themselves and the nation as a whole through reduced energy
    consumption. Major appliance manufacturers such as Maytag have worked
    with DOE to help promote efforts to encourage consumers to replace
    older appliances with newer and more energy efficient models.
                            industrial technologies
        The BCSE supports DOE's Industries of the Future program and the
    agency's combustion research efforts. However, the Council believes
    that DOE should do more to develop advanced industrial boilers and
    heaters that increase efficiency and reduce emissions. Boilers and
    steam systems consume over 6.0 quads of energy with approximately half
    of that consumption represented by natural gas. A recent study by the
    Gas Research Institute, a Council member, documented that over 80
    percent of the Nation's boilers were purchased prior to 1978, with the
    bulk of the purchases made in the 1960s. The majority of these aging
    boilers are due for replacement during the next 15 years.
        The Super Boilers program (SBP), DOE's effort to replace these
    technologies, seeks to provide a 50 percent improvement in boiler
    efficiency over today's models. The Super Boiler will be 50 percent
    smaller, cost 25 percent less to manufacture and maintain, and will
    have emissions which meet regulations beyond 2025. The focus of the
    program is to develop a suite of enabling boiler and combustion
    technologies under a standardized, common technology platform that will
    allow low-cost manufacturing of packaged boilers that provide
    significant benefits over presently available technologies. From an
    environmental and equipment replacement standpoint, industry and DOE
    should coordinate their efforts to develop new steam generation
    technologies in the next 15 to 25 years and beyond. To meet this need,
    the BCSE seeks $2 million for SBP research. DOE has not requested any
    funding for this activity.
        The BCSE supports OIT's $1 million request for technical assistance
    activities for combined heat and power (CHP) technologies within the
    Crosscutting Industries of the Future (IOF) program. This initiative
    can address barriers and provide technical tools and expertise which
    demonstrate the successful industrial application of CHP technologies,
    strengthening awareness of and confidence in their development and
    deployment. Furthermore, in recognition of the value of CHP
    applications across industries, the Council supports the increased
    adoption and use of CHP within Industrial Distributed Generation
    activities in the Crosscutting IOF program.
                                utility programs
        DOE also has worked effectively with utilities and power
    authorities to promote energy efficiency. Through voluntary programs
    such as Climate Wise, DOE has obtained the commitment of utilities to
    reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Generally, activities that
    reduce emissions also reduce energy use. Climate Wise participants--
    such as Council member Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)--
    have premised their programs on sound economic principles. In fact,
    SMUD attributes its aggressive support for energy efficiency as a
    primary reason it has been able to stabilize its electricity rates.
                            standards and insulation
        DOE has played a constructive role in providing educational and
    technical support of building codes and standards such as the Model
    Energy Code and ASHRAE 90.1. These codes and standards--promulgated by
    private-sector organizations--ensure that our nation's housing reflects
    good building construction practices and is reasonably energy
    efficient. In addition, DOE is currently providing educational and
    technical support to help industry implement the guidelines. DOE also
    has provided valuable technical assistance to the polyurethane foam
    insulation industry, helping the industry to find substitutes for some
    blowing agents used in insulation installation. The new
    polyisocyanurate insulation performs as efficiently as the prior
    product.
                           federal energy management
        Finally, the BCSE is extremely supportive of the Federal Energy
    Management program (FEMP) efforts at reducing federal energy usage
    through the use of energy service performance contracting, reducing
    energy usage while minimizing up front capital outlays. The federal
    government spends over $3.0 billion annually to light, heat and cool
    the interior of buildings it owns and operates. FEMP's progressive
    program is a model of public/private partnership. Federal facilities,
    like those occupied by private industry, often can be economically
    upgraded and retrofitted, reducing the energy required to provide
    essential building energy services. The BCSE is proud that two of its
    members, Honeywell and Sempra Energy, won DOE competitive regional
    solicitations to perform this important work. We believe every agency
    of the federal government should increase its utilization of energy
    service performance contracts to take advantage of this approach for
    upgrading facilities and reducing energy expenditures.
                                   conclusion
        The Council recognizes that the Administration's fiscal year 2000
    request for energy efficiency programs represent an increase over
    fiscal year 1999. However, the BCSE believes that the federal
    government's participation in cost-shared public/private partnerships
    aimed at developing cost-effective non and low-polluting technologies
    is the best and least intrusive manner for the government to address
    our environmental challenges.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of Energy Service
                                   Companies
        The National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO)
    appreciates the opportunity to submit the following written testimony
    in support of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2000
    budget request for energy efficiency contracting and other energy
    efficiency project support services.
        NAESCO is a trade association of energy service companies (ESCOs)
    and their trade allies, including utility and manufacturing companies.
    NAESCO's current membership of over 140 organizations includes firms
    involved in the design, manufacture, financing and installation of
    energy efficiency equipment and services in the private and public
    sectors, including Federal buildings.
        The thousands of energy efficiency retrofits installed by NAESCO
    member companies to date enable energy consumers to save an average of
    25 percent of their previous building energy costs. Energy Service
    Company projects can include non-energy renovations as well as measures
    to improve efficiency. These projects can be customized for each
    facility's particular needs. In addition, ESCOs assume the performance
    and technical risk so that repayment for project costs comes only from
    measured and verified energy savings generated by a successful, ongoing
    project. In this way, the cost of an energy efficiency project is paid
    entirely from energy savings, requiring no additional budget outlay to
    support the capital investment.
        The Federal Government is the single largest energy consumer in the
    world. In 1994, the Federal Government spent about $3.8 billion of
    taxpayer money for the energy it used in the buildings that it owns and
    leases. Competitively procured energy efficiency improvements, financed
    by the private sector, can reduce these energy costs by as much as $1
    billion per year through the use of Energy Savings Performance
    Contracts (ESPCs). The capital upgrades and energy cost savings offered
    to federal facilities through Energy Savings Performance Contracts come
    at no additional cost to the federal budget, or to American taxpayers.
        In line with the reasons and comments set forth below, NAESCO fully
    supports the DOE's budget requests for the Federal Energy Management
    Program (FEMP) and for the Rebuild America Program to promote and
    support competitive energy efficiency contracting in federal
    facilities.
       naesco supports doe's full budget requests for its federal energy
               management program and its rebuild america program
        NAESCO believes that the budget requests for DOE's energy
    efficiency initiatives through the FEMP and the Rebuild America Program
    are relatively negligible when compared to the potential for savings to
    the Federal Treasury and the Treasury of each state and local
    government. The impact of DOE's efforts in these areas has been
    significant and deserves the continued support of the Committee.
    naesco supports the department of energy's creation of the femp service
    network for the purpose of facilitating federal budget savings through
                     energy savings performance contracting
        The DOE awards delivery orders for private sector energy efficiency
    investments in federal facilities under its Regional Energy Savings
    Performance Contracts (also referred to as ``Super ESPCs''), that have
    been awarded as a result of multiple competitive solicitations. In
    addition, federal agencies may procure private sector energy efficiency
    services for their facilities through individual Energy Savings
    Performance Contracts under the procedures set forth in the 1992 Energy
    Policy Act.
        Under the Regional ESPCs, the DOE's approval of a delivery order is
    required for the Energy Service Company to undertake actual
    implementation of the energy efficiency project. One of the most
    difficult issues faced by the Federal Energy Management Program in its
    efforts to facilitate private sector energy efficiency investments in
    federal facilities, has been the often significant delay between the
    initial Energy Savings Performance Contract award and the award of the
    delivery order itself. In general, the principal cause of delay has
    been the lack of trained contracting personnel.
        To address this problem, DOE's Federal Energy Management Program,
    during the past year, launched the ``FEMP Service Network.'' Through
    this program, which operates on a fee-for-service basis, FEMP technical
    and contracting experts provide support for individual Energy Savings
    Performance Contracts and for task orders under the Regional Energy
    Savings Performance Contracts. In launching these services, DOE's
    Federal Energy Management Program has made expeditious contracting
    support for energy efficiency projects for federal facilities a
    priority activity.
        The creation of coordinated fee-for-service technical and
    contracting support, such as that offered by DOE's FEMP Service
    Network, is a key step in the Federal Government's development of
    programs to facilitate the installation of energy efficiency upgrades
    in federal facilities. Therefore, NAESCO strongly recommends that the
    reimbursable methods authorized by Congress for the FEMP program be
    authorized immediately for all other agency ESPC contracting offices.
        NAESCO also notes that any language referring to ``the Economy Act
    provisions''--such as the language that the Air Force has interpreted
    to mean that they cannot use DOE contracts--in fact should not be
    considered germane to the use of one agency's ESPCs by any other
    agency. NAESCO encourages the Committee to support all efforts to
    expedite the award of delivery orders once the competitive
    solicitations have been concluded.
         in addition to the femp service network, doe's federal energy
      management program provides critical training and other support for
        competitive energy efficiency contracting in federal facilities
        The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Renewable
    Energy, where the Federal Energy Management Program is located, has
    demonstrated leadership and initiative on a number of important federal
    energy efficiency fronts, most importantly:
        (1) the ongoing technical guidance and training of Federal energy
    managers with respect to the development of energy efficiency projects;
        (2) the formulation of standardized guidelines and procedures for
    quantifying the measured and verified energy savings resulting from the
    installation of energy efficiency measures; and
        (3) the development and dissemination of materials designed to
    educate both the public and private sectors regarding the availability
    and benefit of energy efficiency measures.
        In addition to the above, FEMP provides ongoing training for the
    over 3,000 energy managers and contracting officers in the Federal
    Government.
        The DOE's support in each of the above areas is essential to
    ensuring that individual facility Energy Savings Performance Contracts
    and the Regional Energy Savings Performance Contracts already awarded
    result in actual energy efficiency projects in federal facilities.
      naesco supports the department of energy's rebuild america program,
    designed to increase energy conservation in the state government, local
                        government, and private sectors
        In keeping with its commitment to energy efficiency, the DOE's
    Office of Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Renewable Energy also has
    created the Rebuild America Program, which is removing the barriers to
    increased delivery of energy efficiency in the state government, local
    government, and private sectors by:
        (1) the ongoing technical guidance and training of state and local
    government organization representatives, as well as schools colleges,
    universities, and hospitals about how performance contracting works and
    how to acquire performance contracting services in order to achieve the
    building upgrades they need, and to have those upgrades paid for out of
    energy cost savings;
        (2) the development of multi-sector energy efficiency project case
    studies to help customers understand how they can use performance
    contracting to upgrade their buildings;
        (3) the identification of direct actions that can be taken to
    increase the implementation of energy efficiency measures by ESCOs and
    other providers, with or without the existence of utility industry
    restructuring; and
        (4) participating in inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional efforts
    involving DOE, EPA, State Energy offices and State Air offices to
    develop the necessary guidelines and authorities to allow energy
    efficiency to be a fully recognized compliance mechanism for air
    emissions reductions required by the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency under the Clean Air Act.
        The use of energy efficiency as an air quality compliance mechanism
    lowers the cost of achieving environmental objectives, while increasing
    the market based incentives for energy efficiency investments. DOE's
    efforts in this regard are especially timely now, since the ongoing
    restructuring in the electric utility industry is creating a situation
    where energy efficiency is becoming an ever more important vehicle for
    addressing energy demand and environmental issues.
                                   conclusion
        NAESCO supports full funding for the DOE's Federal Energy
    Management Program and Rebuild America Program. These programs pay for
    themselves many times over by generating public budget savings through
    the promotion and implementation of competitive, performance-based
    energy efficiency contracting. FEMP program benefits accrue directly to
    the Federal Government and U.S. taxpayers. Rebuild America program
    benefits accrue to state and local governments and to U.S. taxpayers at
    the state and local levels.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Glenn Coontz, Vice Chair, Department of Finance
        and Administrative Services, Urban Consortium Energy Task Force
        This testimony is submitted for the information of the Subcommittee
    during the consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget requests for
    the Department of Energy (DOE). The Urban Consortium Energy Task Force
    (UCETF) appreciates this opportunity to update the Subcommittee on the
    progress of the applied energy research and development activities
    being undertaken through the DOE's Municipal Energy Management Program
    (MEMP).
        The UCETF is made up of local government energy policy makers and
    administrators from major urban areas around the United States.
    Currently, 24 jurisdictions are represented on the UCETF: Albuquerque,
    NM; Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Dade County, FL; Denver, CO;
    Greensboro, NC; Hennepin County, MN; Kansas City, MO; Little Rock, AR;
    Long Beach, CA; Memphis, TN; Monroe County, NY; Montgomery County, MD;
    Orange County, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; San
    Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Santa Fe County, NM;
    Seattle, WA; and Washington, D.C. The UCETF is a subgroup of the Urban
    Consortium, an organization of the nation's largest cities and counties
    joined together to identify, develop, apply and transfer innovative
    approaches and technological solutions to common issues. The Urban
    Consortium is a program of Public Technology, Inc. (PTI), which is the
    non-profit technology organization of the National League of Cities,
    the National Association of Counties, and the International City/County
    Management Association.
        The goal of the UCETF is to act as the premier technology research,
    development and deployment organization dealing directly with the
    energy problems and needs of local government. The UCETF meets this
    objective, in part, by managing a competitive energy program with
    funding provided by the Department of Energy, Municipal Energy
    Management Program. The UCETF also undertakes a variety of technology
    transfer and solution deployment activities designed to widely
    disseminate the knowledge gained through the performance of local
    government energy projects to jurisdictions throughout the United
    States.
                 the role of memp in meeting local energy needs
        Local governments are in the forefront of the nation's response to
    interrelated energy supply, clean air and climate change issues. Local
    governments have assumed leadership roles in energy efficiency
    programs, ranging from the introduction of advanced energy building
    retrofit and ``green building'' practices; to encouraging the use of
    alternative fuels to cut dependency on imported oil and reduce air
    emissions from the transportation sector; to developing and
    implementing local strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases;
    to recognizing the importance of reducing energy usage, and creating
    local energy industries, for local economic growth and sustainable
    development. Larger urban governments in particular have been able to
    use energy policy and programs as tools to help reduce the cost of
    government and stimulate the local economy to produce more revenues
    that can be used to deliver priority services to local populations. The
    Municipal Energy Management Program directly increases the ability of
    local governments to identify, design and implement energy policies
    that support local economic objectives, including jobs growth and
    retention.
        MEMP creates a direct relationship between the Federal government
    and local governments on energy issues. It is the only Federal energy
    efficiency research, development and technology application and
    transfer program directed by local governments, which responds to the
    specific energy-related needs of local governments.
        As administered by the UCETF, MEMP leverages federal, state and
    local funds for the conduct of competitively-selected energy research
    and technology transfer projects. The UCETF develops an annual request
    for proposals for projects that will address the energy-related topics
    of the greatest common concern among local governments. The RFP is
    widely circulated through direct mailing and on the Internet to cities
    and counties across the nation. Between 50 and 60 proposals are
    typically submitted by jurisdictions around the United States in
    response to the annual competitive solicitation. Submissions are peer
    reviewed by local energy officials, and evaluated on the basis of their
    energy and dollar savings, innovation, job creation and economic
    development benefits, partnerships and cost-sharing, benefits to the
    environment, and overall benefit to the community. Selections are based
    on merit. Projects are conducted by local government staff, in
    furtherance of the UCETF/MEMP mission to improve the energy management
    capabilities of local governments. To encourage technology transfer,
    results are documented and disseminated broadly among state, city and
    county energy professionals. Although per-project funding is modest,
    MEMP funding frequently permits communities to undertake projects that
    would not otherwise have been conducted and to leverage other resources
    to address key energy issues. Project results are applied in
    communities to cut energy use and reduce costs.
        MEMP is cross-cutting, permitting local governments to address
    priorities in a variety of energy efficiency areas, including
    buildings, transportation, business and industrial energy efficiency,
    solar and renewable energy technologies and other energy use/power
    supply technologies. As energy concerns have evolved, so has MEMP. From
    its early focus on energy emergency response and creating an energy
    management capability in local governments, the program has grown to
    emphasize cutting edge technology advances that can save energy and
    money, assure environmental quality and enhance prospects for local
    economic growth. Today, the UCETF/MEMP program serves as a source of
    information and technical assistance to enable local government to
    address current issues, such as restructuring and change in the
    electricity industry, local responses to climate change, possible local
    government alternative/replacement fuel requirements, energy-related
    aspects of congestion mitigation and air quality improvement programs,
    and energy considerations in programs to combat sprawl and encourage
    smart growth.
        The MEMP program is a proven successful method to deliver and apply
    energy technologies to address community issues and to share energy
    information among communities around the country, thereby preparing
    local officials to respond to the energy and energy-related
    environmental issues in their own communities. More than 400 projects
    in over 60 different jurisdictions across the United States have been
    conducted through the UCETF/MEMP program over the years.
                  the ucetf's 1998-1999 applied energy program
        The 1998-1999 UCETF program is supporting projects addressing
    energy and economic development; issues and opportunities for local
    governments in electric industry restructuring; and strategies for
    environmentally responsible local energy production and usage. All
    programs must demonstrate strong partnerships, which in many cases
    include cost-sharing, from the private sector and other government
    agencies, in order to maximize the successful application of project
    results. In addition, the program includes three projects to further
    develop and apply the results of prior UCETF projects. A summary of the
    energy technology development/application or technology transfer
    projects selected for inclusion in the 1998-1999 program is presented
    below:
        Energy and Economic Development.--Energy efficiency activities and
    the use of new energy technologies can contribute to creation of a
    sustainable urban environment. The UCETF 1998-1999 economic development
    unit is focusing on developing and sharing information on the benefits
    of energy efficiency/new energy technologies in communities, and on
    means of preserving the economic benefits of demand side management
    programs as the electricity market becomes more competitive. Clark
    County, NV, will conduct research to support new hydrogen
    transportation technologies, by studying a ``transition'' hydrogen
    technology--a hydrogen enriched lean burn modification to a standard
    compressed natural gas vehicle. The popular Denver, CO, cable
    television program, Earth Cafe, will be used to share the knowledge and
    experience gained through UCETF projects among more than 18 million
    potential viewers in communities across the nation. Barnstable County,
    MA, will examine the local government role in assuring that the
    economic benefits of demand side management energy efficiency programs
    remain available as competition is introduced into the electricity
    market. Seattle, WA, will promote and support market transformation in
    building practices in three communities in Washington state, to lead to
    greater implementation of sustainable building construction design.
        Utility Restructuring.--Again this year, significant attention is
    being devoted to issues involved in the introduction of increased
    competition in the electricity industry. This issue has the potential
    to significantly influence--for better or for worse--all local
    governments. But because of the breadth and complexity of the issues
    involved, many local governments are ill-prepared to deal with the
    demands of the changing marketplace. Through research projects in
    jurisdictions around the nation, and technology transfer activities,
    the UCETF is a leading national resource for communities on approaches
    to, and the implications for local governments of, coming changes in
    the structure of the electricity industry. San Francisco, CA, will
    evaluate the energy efficiency services being offered in the
    restructuring electric utility industry. The City will also develop
    guidance for local governments in evaluating the increasingly complex
    offerings of energy service companies and other energy service
    providers. Juneau County, WI, will assist Wisconsin counties in
    preparing for utility restructuring in the state by helping them
    aggregate electricity loads to reduce power prices. St. Louis County,
    MO, will determine the effects of utility restructuring on power
    prices, on-site electricity generation and new technology development.
        Energy Usage and Supply.--Local governments face continuing
    requirements to cut energy usage and costs, and search for
    opportunities to apply new technologies expressly suited to local
    climatic conditions that use local energy resources. Albuquerque, NM,
    will produce a guide book--based on the city's extensive experience
    with solar technology--to assist other communities in developing and
    deploying solar applications at typical public facilities and public
    housing projects. This project will contribute directly to achieving
    the goals of the President's Million Solar Roofs Initiative. Thousand
    Palms, CA, will undertake a project to deploy renewable energy in
    municipal transit buses by producing hydrogen using photovoltaic and
    wind generated electricity. Philadelphia, PA,was selected to build on
    its ground-breaking work to achieve energy savings through light
    emitting diode (LED) technology. The project would investigate the
    feasibility of integrating LEDs and photovoltaics in outdoor lighting
    applications. Chicago, IL, will analyze opportunities for obtaining
    electricity for use in multiple facilities from renewable energy
    applications rather than the local utility.
        Technology Transfer.--The UCETF is conducting three projects
    specifically designed to document and transfer lessons learned through
    local government energy programs. Portland, OR, will document its work
    in determining the most economic and efficient uses of surplus digester
    gas. This work will provide guidance to other communities investigating
    options for the use of methane fuel cells to produce electricity.
    Austin, TX, will develop an Internet and CD Rom course based on
    Austin's pioneering work in developing the ``green building'' concept.
    The course will explain the principles of green building, their
    application to design and construction, and how to demonstrate the
    benefits of green building to building occupants. Memphis, TN, will
    develop a communications protocol to link building electronic
    monitoring and control systems of different manufacturers, in order to
    maximize the effectiveness of the city's building automation network.
    The Memphis approach should be highly transferable to other communities
    facing similar needs.
        As part of the 1998-1999 core technology transfer program, the
    UCETF is continuing distribution of publications designed to address
    issues facing communities in electricity restructuring. In addition,
    the UCETF is developing new tools to transfer lessons learned in the
    areas of alternative transportation fuels and solar technology
    applications.
                                   conclusion
        Local governments are a crucial component of the effort to maintain
    the United States as the world's leader in developing, applying and
    exporting sustainable, environmentally benign and economically
    competitive energy technologies. Through its participation in MEMP, the
    UCETF provides important opportunities for hands-on applied energy
    research in local communities, serving as an urban laboratory for the
    development and testing of new technology. The program is an effective
    means of delivering energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies
    to jurisdictions across the country. Efforts in recent years to broaden
    and diversify the UCETF/MEMP program have met with success, as the
    UCETF has built on its strengths in identifying and addressing the
    specific energy challenges facing the nation's communities.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Natural Gas Industry
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Natural Gas
    Industry's Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) Initiative
    (hereinafter the ``Initiative'') is comprised of producers, pipelines,
    distributors, and research and trade organizations. We appreciate this
    opportunity to present our views on natural gas-related RD&D sponsored
    by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
        The Initiative has worked closely with DOE and this Subcommittee
    over the years with the objective of advancing cost-shared projects
    that serve the national interest. Within the Interior Subcommittee's
    jurisdiction, DOE's fiscal year 2000 budget request for natural gas
    RD&D programs in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    (EERE) and Office of Fossil Energy (FE) totals $205 million. While this
    is only slightly lower than last year's request of $207 million it
    represents a 13 percent decrease from the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation approved by Congress. Yet, in stark contrast to these
    reductions, EERE's fiscal year 2000 overall budget request for RD&D
    represents a 23 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation. The Initiative is disappointed that DOE, and EERE
    specifically, continues to give greater emphasis in its budget requests
    to other programs, inconsistent with the levels approved by Congress.
    Thus, the Initiative has identified several natural gas RD&D programs
    that deserve additional attention.
        Consistent with the past, and our published Blue Book, listing RD&D
    rationales for the next five years, our top priorities for fiscal year
    2000 include: microturbines (seeking $2.5 million above DOE's request);
    advanced reciprocating engine systems (seeking $2 million above DOE's
    request); industrial combustion systems (seeking $2 million above DOE's
    request); fuel cells (seeking a shift of funds from Fossil Energy's
    various ``Vision 21'' activities back to the three existing research
    projects and agreed upon schedules); natural gas cooling and combined
    cooling-heating & power (seeking $2 million above DOE's request);
    natural gas vehicles (seeking $4.2 million above DOE's request); and
    natural gas supply (seeking $1 million above DOE's request). The
    specifics of each of these requests are presented below.
                       gas turbine & engine technologies
        Due to regulatory restructuring coupled with technology innovation,
    electric power in the U.S. will likely experience more change in the
    next decade than throughout its history. Microturbine (MT) technologies
    will emerge as one of the leaders in power production. Valuable
    attributes of MT's are modularity, the ability to be remotely operated,
    high reliability, and excellent power quality. This translates to
    maximum flexibility to consumers and opportunities in markets that
    require premium power.
        MTs are small (25-300 kW) gas turbines derived from automotive and
    truck turbochargers, auxiliary power units for aircraft or tanks, and
    small jet engines for drone aircraft. They are designed for distributed
    generation (DG), combined heat and power (CHP), and mechanical drive
    prime mover applications. Technology improvements in materials, ceramic
    components, and aerodynamic design can potentially increase efficiency
    to 35-45 percent. This is more efficient than power generated at a
    distant, central-station power plant which suffers losses as it is
    delivered through the electric transmission and distribution grid. By
    recovering exhaust heat, energy consumers can utilize MTs in a CHP
    application and raise total fuel utilization efficiency to greater than
    75 percent.
        MT's today can contribute to reducing emissions (NOX and
    CO2) associated with electric power generation. When fueled
    by natural gas from our domestic resource base, they currently emit
    NOX at 9-40 ppm, this is an improvement over the existing
    U.S. generation fleet. Emissions reduction technologies, such as
    catalytic combustion, offer the potential of near zero emissions
    levels. To achieve the environmental, efficiency and cost-reduction
    goals of the program, the Initiative specifically seeks $2.5 million
    above DOE's current request of $2.5 million for microturbine engine
    development research.
        Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems (ARES) are another important
    technology for DG applications in a deregulating electric marketplace.
    Natural gas engines are the leading customer choice for DG and CHP in
    the 300 kW--3000 kW size range. These products offer significant
    benefits for small to medium-sized industrial customers, commercial
    building and retail customers, institutional customers (hospital and
    education), federal government and military facilities, as well as
    municipal, cooperative, and public electric utility companies. ARES
    provide significant advances in efficient use of natural gas resources
    while minimizing environmental impact levels. This will result in
    future avoided annual emissions for NOx of 40,000-60,000 tons per year
    and 7.6-11.5 million tons for CO32. Estimated annual savings
    in unburned natural gas (from improved efficiency) are approximately
    110-170 billion cubic feet. This equals the energy consumed annually in
    about 1.4 million homes.
        The ARES program will position domestic natural gas engine
    manufacturers to compete effectively against foreign engine producers
    looking to enter the U.S market as well as further promote an expanding
    export market for high-technology. The Initiative seeks $2 million for
    this research, DOE's has not requested anything for reciprocating
    engines.
                            industrial technologies
        The Initiative remains supportive of DOE's Industries of the Future
    program and DOE's on-going combustion research effort. The Initiative,
    however, again believes that DOE must do more to develop advanced
    industrial boilers and heaters that both increase efficiency and lower
    emissions. Boilers and steam systems consume over 6.0 quads of energy
    with about half of the fuel consumption represented by natural gas. The
    nation is faced with an aging boiler population. A recent GRI study
    documents that over 80 percent of these boilers were purchased prior to
    1978, with the bulk of the purchases in the 1960s. The majority of
    these aging boilers are due for replacement within the next 15 years.
        This effort, known as the Super Boilers program (SBP), seeks to
    provide 50 percent improvement in efficiency over today's installed
    boilers. The Super Boiler will be 50 percent smaller, cost 25 percent
    less to manufacture and maintain, and will have extremely low emissions
    that meet the ever-stringent emission regulations beyond 2025. The
    boiler marketplace is very diverse, with multiple manufacturers and
    designs; one technology concept will not fit all needs. It is the focus
    of this program to develop a suite of enabling boiler and combustion
    technologies under a standardized, common technology platform that will
    allow low-cost manufacture of packaged boilers that provide significant
    benefits over the currently available boilers. The timing is ripe, both
    from the environmental and equipment replacement standpoint, for DOE
    and industry to join forces on a crosscutting approach to develop new,
    leapfrog steam generation technologies to meet the competitive needs of
    the U.S. industry in the next 15 to 25 years and beyond. To this end,
    the Initiative seeks $2 million for SBP research. DOE has not requested
    any funding for this activity.
                            fuel cells technologies
        The Initiative is highly supportive of EERE's fiscal year 2000
    request for Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells and Fossil Energy's
    work to date on Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC) and Solid Oxide Fuel
    Cells (SOFC). The Initiative, however, opposes DOE's proposal to shift
    $4.95 million from the two MCFC teams and the SOFC program and moving
    those funds to its new ``Vision 21'' IGCC program. Similarly, $5.1
    million which the Department proposes to shift to ``Vision 21'' support
    activities within the Fuel Cell Development Program should be restored
    to the three principal contracts. Without both these funds, the molten
    carbonate and solid oxide programs will, in DOE's own words, be
    ``stretched out.'' Moreover, DOE should not be permitted to rush into
    new fuel cell applications related to ``Vision 21'' while shortchanging
    the very core fuel cell research which is fundamental to any subsequent
    applications of either technology. Consequently, the Initiative
    specifically seeks to have the funding shifted (keeping the program
    whole at $40 million) back so that the existing schedules can be
    honored.
                gas cooling, heat pumps & appliance technologies
        The Initiative is supportive of DOE's fiscal year 2000 request for
    natural gas cooling technologies. However, there is a distinct
    opportunity to significantly conserve resources and reduce greenhouse
    gas by accelerating the use of combined cooling, heating and power
    (CCHP) systems in commercial buildings.
        Historically, research, development and commercialization efforts
    have been focused on individual equipment (e.g. cooling, thermal
    storage, ventilation air systems, power generation and cooling). CCHP
    for buildings now focuses on on-site fuel conversion making it possible
    to combine power generation and HVAC system optimization and
    integration with other innovation building technologies. This yields
    remarkable building-level energy efficiency gains and emission
    reduction achievements. The CCHP initiative goal is an additional 40
    percent efficiency improvement over and above improvements projected in
    other elements of the Buildings Program. To this end, the Initiative
    seeks $2 million for CCHP research. DOE has not sought funding for
    these activities. Specifically, we seek $1 million for design tools to
    optimize selection for new and retrofit CCHP systems, and $1 million
    for associated materials and manufacturing technology.
        Finally, DOE should place a greater emphasis on the direct use of
    natural gas for appliances in residential and commercial buildings.
    There is an inherent conflict between national increased efficiency
    requirements and the gas consumer's desire for lower first-cost
    equipment. RD&D is needed to reduce the high first-cost hurdle between
    efficiency requirements and consumer needs. However, the Initiative
    seeks no additional funding above DOE's request.
                              natural gas vehicles
        The United States remains critically dependent on petroleum as a
    transportation fuel. This dependence has contributed to significant air
    quality and energy security concerns. Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) offer
    proven, cost-effective solutions to both of these problems. NGVs are
    certified to be up to 99 percent cleaner than traditionally fueled
    vehicles and, when compared to average petroleum vehicles, reduce
    exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by 70 percent, non-methane
    organic gas by 89 percent and nitrogen oxides (NOX) by 87
    percent, and produce 20 percent fewer greenhouse gases.
        While the availability of NGVs has grown dramatically over the past
    ten years, the number of actual sales has not. In 1992, no Original
    Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) offered NGVs for sale, today there are
    over 50 models available. In 1992, there were a few NGV fueling
    stations, today there are over 1300 NGV fueling stations open for
    business nationwide. Despite the impressive growth in available NGVs
    and fueling infrastructure, the actual number of vehicles on the road
    today remains well under one-half of one percent of all registered
    vehicles (70,000). Research is still required, aimed at reducing the
    NGV's first cost, before the public will accept them as mainstream.
        Over the past few years, DOE continues to submit robust requests
    for the transportation sector, specifically the Partnership for a New
    Generation Vehicle program. However, DOE continues to depart from its
    commitment to the Comprehensive Program Plan for NGV research, which
    was developed in response to this Subcommittee's directive in fiscal
    year 1997. Accordingly, the Initiative must once again seek to restore
    funding levels for priorities identified by the DOE and industry 5-year
    plan. Specifically, no funds were requested for the Light Duty portion
    of the Plan. $2 million is needed there. The Plan calls for $11.1
    million for Medium and Heavy-Duty vehicle research, but DOE has
    requested only $8.9 million that is consistent with the Plan in this
    area. Thus, we are requesting an additional $2.2 million for Heavy Duty
    Vehicles.
                               natural gas supply
        Natural gas is domestically abundant today, and real gas prices are
    only half of what they were in the mid-1980's. Continuing gas supply
    technology advances are key to meeting projected levels and sustained,
    affordable prices for gas supply. These advanced supply technologies
    are of paramount importance to more than 8,000 independent producers,
    who drill 85 percent of the wells and produce 66 percent of the gas in
    the lower 48 states.
        The Initiative continues to support DOE's request for natural gas
    supply research. In fiscal year 2000, the Initiative particularly seeks
    $1 million for research on laser drilling technology. DOE sought no
    funding for this activity. Current estimates of future natural gas use
    indicate that drilling will take place in increasingly more difficult
    environments. Therefore, DOE should assess the opportunities to develop
    revolutionary drilling concepts such as the use of lasers. The benefits
    of laser drilling technology are penetration rates that are 10-100
    times faster than those achieved with conventional rotary drilling
    techniques.
                                   conclusion
        The Initiative is giving great emphasis to developing comprehensive
    programs across end-use sectors that compliment each other and
    compliment electric deregulation efforts to provide cheaper energy to
    the end-user while reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency,
    quality, and reliability. We are striving to coordinate our efforts
    with federal and state research initiatives to enhance the benefits for
    each party and the natural gas consumer. Our combined efforts to
    advance natural gas technologies will create high paying American jobs
    and boost US competitiveness in the global marketplace. The Initiative
    greatly appreciates your past support and consideration of these
    proposals.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of General Electric Power Systems
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric Power
    Systems (GE) for the information of the Committee during its review of
    the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget requests. GE
    strongly supports the Administration's request for $41.8 million for
    the Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program, including $32.590 million
    for major systems development, within the Fossil Energy budget account.
    DOE's funding request signifies the important contributions that ATS
    technology will make to the nation's energy security and environmental
    objectives. GE appreciates the strong Congressional support that has
    been so critical to the success of the ATS program, and welcomes this
    opportunity to update the Committee on the progress of the ATS research
    and development effort.
                        ge-doe ats cooperative agreement
        In March 1998, GE and DOE executed a modified Cooperative Agreement
    providing for GE's continued, cost-shared participation in the ATS
    program. The modified Cooperative Agreement reflects the continuing
    commitment of GE and DOE to the ATS program. The central goal of the
    ATS program--producing technology by 2000 that is ready for commercial
    application--is unchanged. DOE's fiscal year 2000 funding request
    represents the last major increment of Federal funding for the ATS
    program.
        The modified GE-DOE Cooperative Agreement, which extends through
    December 2000, eliminated the planned demonstration phase of the ATS
    program and extended the technology validation phase. Demonstration of
    the ATS technology will be the responsibility of industry at the end of
    the technology validation phase. Under the restructured ATS program, GE
    will manufacture and perform a full-speed, no-load test on a 60 Hertz
    machine by the end of 1999 at GE's Greenville, South Carolina facility.
    DOE cost sharing is critical to this aggressive schedule.
                          benefits of the ats program
        The ATS program occupies a key position in the DOE's fossil energy
    research and development portfolio, and is an integral part of the
    evolving ``Vision 21'' concept for future highly efficient, clean power
    generation. Through the government's partnership with industry, the ATS
    program is well on the way to supporting the commercial introduction of
    the world's most efficient gas turbine, securing U.S. technological
    leadership in this critical technology area and producing important
    benefits to the nation:
    Energy efficiency
        The goal of the ATS program is to achieve fuel-to-electricity
    efficiencies of 60 percent or greater, resulting in significant
    reductions in fuel consumption.
    Lower electricity costs
        Fuel savings will, in turn, lower electricity costs, benefitting
    the competitiveness of U.S. industries in the world marketplace. The
    ATS program has had as its goal a 10 percent reduction in the cost of
    electricity produced relative to existing combined cycle power plants.
    Emissions reductions
        Natural gas fired gas turbines produce no particulates, ash, heavy
    metals, toxins, or sulfur oxides. Additionally, the ATS will achieve a
    significant reduction in emissions of oxides of nitrogen, and will
    further reduce carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions relative to
    the current fossil fueled power generation base.
    Stimulating jobs retention and growth
        Tens of thousands of Americans already work to manufacture gas
    turbines and to provide key components. Manufacturing jobs in this
    industry already have been lost, and the remaining jobs are at risk
    because of stiff international competition. U.S. jobs depend on
    continued U.S. global leadership in turbine technology, which is
    supported by the ATS program.
                            the technical challenge
        Existing gas turbine technology benefited from the knowledge gained
    from years of national investments in military aircraft engine
    technologies. The need to meet high efficiency and low emissions
    requirements simultaneously for power generation systems in 2000 and
    beyond has necessitated the development of a steam-cooled turbine
    generation system--the first time that the industry has been called
    upon to develop a new technology specifically for power generation
    applications. Government has shared the risks inherent in meeting this
    technical challenge through the ATS program.
        GE's ``H System'' advanced turbine is an advanced combined-cycle
    system designed to break the 60 percent thermal-efficiency barrier
    while offering the lowest cost of electricity production with the
    lowest levels of emissions. Combined-cycle systems generate electricity
    from both a gas turbine and a steam turbine driven by steam generated
    from the gas turbine's exhaust. Where other gas turbines are air-
    cooled, ATS combined-cycle power blocks are based on a unique
    technology platform in which the gas turbine buckets and nozzles are
    steam-cooled by an integrated steam system. Steam cooling of the
    turbine airfoils enables higher turbine inlet temperatures to be
    achieved without increases in combustor exit temperatures, resulting in
    low levels of NOX and significant improvements in
    efficiency. Efficiency gains also translate directly into reduced
    emissions of greenhouse gases. The ATS will also be a fuel flexible
    system; because of its higher thermal efficiency and output, the ATS is
    expected to substantially advance the economic viability of coal gas
    (IGCC) systems.
                             the market opportunity
        Industry and government working together can take on more risk,
    confront bigger technical challenges and speed the development and
    application of technologies which ultimately will gain market
    acceptance and provide potentially large energy, economic,
    environmental and strategic returns to the nation. The ATS program
    offers a prime example of how government technology leadership is
    helping to assure that advanced, efficient technologies are available
    to meet market demand.
        Industry's R&D risk/reward window is often more focused on the
    short-term than government's, which can address broader, national
    priorities that may not yet be adequately valued in the marketplace.
    Despite the important benefits of ATS technology, because of the
    continuing technical risks, today the market alone is not sufficient to
    bring this technology to the point of commercial acceptance. The likely
    users of this technology in the U.S., both utilities and independent
    power producers, are not in a position today to make multi-hundred
    million dollar investments in technologies and systems that are not yet
    proven by actual, full-scale operation. Domestic electric industry
    restructuring makes potential investors in new technologies more risk
    averse. At the same time, the increasing pace of electric industry
    restructuring makes the need for advanced, competitive power generation
    technologies more urgent, and the completion of the ATS program more
    timely. According to the Energy Information Administration, 81 percent
    of new U.S. demand for electric generation will be met by gas turbines
    in 2010. The ATS program will assure the availability of more
    efficient, lower emission domestic technology to meet this demand.
        The same key enabling technologies being developed through the ATS
    program are required for both international and domestic applications.
    With the support of the ATS Program, U.S. manufacturers will be better
    able to compete in the projected international market in electricity
    generating systems--a marketplace in which foreign competitors
    frequently receive significant assistance from their governments.
    Successful completion of the ATS program will position U.S. technology
    for immediate introduction into global markets, and will enable U.S.
    technology to surpass leading foreign competitors, solidifying U.S.
    market share in the worldwide market. U.S. success in the export of
    power generation technologies translates directly into jobs in the
    United States.
                         ge ats program accomplishments
        GE's work during the initial phases of the ATS program focused on
    the technologies and component developments necessary for high
    temperature operation, and validation of the technically-innovative
    steam cooling concept. To date, GE has:
      --Completed full-scale, steam-cooled, first stage nozzle cascade
            design validation testing at ATS turbine design operating
            conditions. The first stage nozzles and buckets are the most
            critical high temperature components in the ATS. Testing
            included combustion system mapping, as well as nozzle
            aerodynamic, heat transfer, and low cycle fatigue validation.
      --Completed initial tests of the ``H'' series combustor design at the
            component level, and in a full-scale combustion test stand that
            permitted testing at full pressure, temperature, and flow
            design conditions. GE's design for the gas turbine combustion
            system permits its ATS to achieve high firing temperatures
            while minimizing oxides of nitrogen, a key objective of the ATS
            program.
      --Developed, with suppliers, single crystal casting technology to
            provide the high temperature strength required for the very
            large ATS machine turbine buckets and nozzles.
      --Completed tests of two builds of the \1/3\ scale H compressor,
            which allowed operation of the compressor over its entire
            speed/flow range, and validated the fundamental design of the
            compressor.
      --Completed tests of elements of the steam cooling system, in both
            component rigs and under utility field test conditions, along
            with design of a particulate filter which has been fully
            validated in testing at an operating combined cycle power plant
            to resolve concerns about the effects of impurities in the
            steam on the operation of the cooling system.
      --Developed manufacturing technologies essential for the success of
            the ATS, including extensive development in thermal barrier
            coatings (TBCs), which are critical to the steam cooling
            design. Performed separately-funded tests to validate the
            performance of TBCs in utility customers' current gas turbines
            under actual conditions. Designed a robot to assure proper
            application of TBCs. Improved the forging process to allow for
            production of the largest gas turbine Inconel wheels ever made.
      --Developed testing processes to permit product quality to be
            confirmed without necessitating destruction of expensive parts,
            including nondestructive inspection techniques for single
            crystal airfoil production, and new analytical tools to model
            the startup and shutdown of the gas turbine component of the
            combined cycle unit in greater detail than previously required.
                             recent accomplishments
        With fiscal year 1998 and 1999 funds, GE has continued development
    activity on its ATS engine, which remains on schedule for a full-speed,
    no-load demonstration test in December 1999, and has continued full-
    scale combustion system development, with test results meeting ATS
    design goals. The initial 9H (50 Hz) full-speed, no-load test was run
    in the second quarter of 1998 at GE's Greenville, SC, manufacturing
    facility. The testing validated rotor dynamics and vibration levels;
    compressor airfoil aeromechanics; compressor airflow and efficiency;
    scale-up effects from the compressor rig testing; compressor and
    turbine running clearances; and the Mark VI control system. GE also has
    initiated the 7H (60 Hz) ATS design and manufacturing programs, using
    information derived from the 9H component and full scale testing
    programs. It is anticipated that fiscal year 2000 funding will be used
    to continue testing of full scale components and sub-systems. The
    manufacturing capability for the first test engines will be completed,
    and full-speed, no-load testing of H series engines will continue,
    setting the stage for the completion of the program in the fourth
    quarter of calendar year 2000.
                                   conclusion
        Through R&D investments in programs like the ATS, the Federal
    government assists industry in taking on high risk, high payoff
    opportunities that challenge accepted technological limits. GE urges
    the Committee to continue to provide the resources necessary to
    complete the ATS program.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of David O. Webb, Vice President, Government
               Programs Services Ccenter, Gas Research Institute
        The Gas Research Institute (GRI) appreciates the opportunity to
    submit testimony to the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee to
    present GRI's views and recommendations for fiscal year 2000 funding of
    gas-related research and development (R&D) programs within the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency
    programs. GRI generally supports the Administration's request for these
    programs. However, we are concerned that the gas-related request is $21
    million less than appropriated last year. GRI has recommended an
    increase of $7.5 million in four specific areas to strengthen the
    natural gas related research.
        GRI manages a comprehensive research, development and
    commercialization (RD&C) program for the natural gas industry. GRI has
    over 330 member companies representing producer, pipeline, and local
    distribution companies. GRI jointly plans and cofunds approximately
    $15-$20 million annually with DOE Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency
    programs. Therefore, Congressional action on the DOE budget can impact
    these joint programs.
        For the past twenty years, GRI has been funded principally through
    a FERC-approved pipeline surcharge on interstate natural gas
    transactions. However, in recognition of the changing gas industry
    business environment, GRI will become a fully voluntarily-funded
    organization during the next six years. During that time, and
    thereafter, GRI will be seeking funding outside of the traditional
    FERC-approved surcharges in order to maintain and continue a viable R&D
    program for the gas industry and its customers. While GRI's methods of
    funding will change, GRI will continue to focus it research program on
    developing widely dispersed benefits to gas consumers through the
    development of new and improved technologies. In addition, GRI will
    continue to address the specific needs of the gas industry, our member
    companies and the interests of our new voluntary investors.
                           federal energy r&d policy
        The role of the federal government in funding energy R&D is
    critical as a basis for decision-making by industry as it competes in
    an ever increasingly competitive world market. Our technical world is
    becoming increasingly complex and as the cost of R&D grows, no single
    company or group of companies can afford the cost and risk associated
    with the development of many of the new energy technologies whose broad
    benefits flow predominately to the gas users, not the companies.
    Therefore, in times of declining budgets, government funds should be
    used primarily for investment that are expected to yield broad public
    benefits and, therefore, not likely to be undertaken by the industry
    unless government is a major participant in the funding.
        The government must continue to have the primary role and
    responsibility for funding and managing fundamental long-term basic
    research in energy because private companies are market driven and
    cannot capture the economic benefits of much of this research. Society
    receives large and continuing benefits from fundamental research, and
    since industry alone cannot fund the level of basic research necessary
    to achieve national goals and objectives, the government role in
    funding is critical.
        On the other hand, both government and industry have a joint
    responsibility to plan, conduct, and fund applied R&D to meet the
    nation's energy goals. Industry should be brought in early to assist in
    the planning, financing, and management of the applied research. The
    partnership of private industry in federally sponsored R&D accomplishes
    several goals:
      --Industry will use rigorous cost-benefit analysis to prioritize the
            R&D.
      --If the federal research is aimed at top industry priorities,
            industry will provide cofunding. If industry is not willing to
            support a specific applied energy research program, government
            should reevaluate its own role in that research.
      --Once industry participates financially and managerially in the
            research, the commercialization path will be shorter because
            industry will be committed to bringing the product or process
            to the marketplace in order to benefit from the research.
      --When the project is ready for commercialization, industry is
            already on board and has a vested interest in ensuring the
            technology reaches the marketplace, thus ensuring success from
            the government/industry investment.
      --Finally, costly duplication of research is eliminated.
                    doe fiscal year 2000 gas-related budget
        The DOE fiscal year 2000 gas-related R&D budget request is
    generally supported by the gas industry acting through the Natural Gas
    RD&D Initiative. Industry support of this budget is evidenced through
    significant cost-sharing from the private sector. The research
    proposals set out by DOE will result in completion and
    commercialization of technologies which will contribute significantly
    to the nation's goals as we pursue all of our energy options. In
    addition, many of the products which result from this R&D are excellent
    candidates for export to other countries, thereby increasing the U.S.
    position in global competitiveness.
        Congress has recognized and needs to continue to recognize the role
    of government and industry in cofunding applied energy R&D and should
    give priority to those DOE research programs that are jointly funded
    with industry.
       recommended adjustments to the doe fiscal year 2000 budget request
        While GRI and the Natural Gas RD&D Initiative are supportive of the
    DOE fiscal year 2000 budget request for gas-related research and
    development, there are several adjustments GRI would recommend in order
    to further strengthen the natural gas-related R&D program and to
    address the important issues in the gas industry. These adjustments, if
    incorporated in the fiscal year 2000 budget, would receive the support
    and cofunding of GRI and the natural gas industry. The following
    recommendations are requested:
    Development of laser drilling technology (fossil energy)--+$1 million
        Much of the technology developed for the drilling industry in the
    past few decades has focused on reducing cost primarily by drilling
    wells faster to minimize rig time. Laser drilling has the potential to
    revolutionize gas drilling in the 21st century. It offers the potential
    to increase the rate of penetration more than 10 times that of
    conventional rotary drilling techniques. It would ultimately reduce
    time and cost. This proposed joint industry/government initiative is a
    two-year program to investigate the potential of laser drilling
    systems.
    Microturbine power generation (energy efficiency)--+$2.5 million
        Microturbines are small (25-300 kW) gas turbines which can
    significantly increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. The
    potential worldwide market for microturbines is very large. Due to
    regulatory restructuring coupled with technology innovation, the
    electric power industry in the U.S. will likely experience more change
    in the next decade than throughout its entire history. Energy customers
    in their own search for improved energy service are recognizing that
    electricity can be produced and delivered more cost-effectively and
    cleaner than it is today. One of the emerging technologies that can
    help the U.S. realize this is the natural gas-fueled microturbines.
    Advanced reciprocating engine systems (energy efficiency)--+$2 million
        The U. S. energy industry, natural gas reciprocating engine
    manufacturers, and other committed partners have participated in and
    are recommending expanding a joint industry-government partnership to
    develop breakthrough advancements in natural gas reciprocating engine
    technology. This challenging R&D effort will result in significant
    societal and economic benefits for the United States. Natural gas
    reciprocating engines are internal combustion piston engines which with
    breakthrough advancements would provide a clean, energy efficient
    system for use in the emerging distributed generation, combined heat
    and power, and combined cooling, heat, and power markets.
    Superboilers (energy efficiency)--+$2 million
        The nation's commercial and industrial boilers are aging. Over 80
    percent of these boilers were purchased prior to 1978, with the bulk of
    the purchases in the 1960s. A major ``Super Boiler'' effort by the
    industry and federal government will seek to provide over 50 percent
    improvement in efficiency over today's installed units. In addition,
    this effort would result in units that will be up to 50 percent
    smaller, cost 25 percent less to manufacture and maintain, and will
    have extremely low emissions that meet the stringent emission
    regulations beyond the year 2025.
                                    summary
        GRI encourages the Subcommittee to support the Administration's
    total request for gas-related R&D of approximately $224.5 million plus
    the above recommendations for additions of $7.5 Million. These
    recommended increases fill a need in the gas production industry as
    well as the distributed power generating market through the development
    of more efficient, clean options for the consuming public. The fiscal
    year 2000 DOE budget request for gas-related research is approximately
    $21 million lower than the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The
    additions recommended will still result in lower gas-related funding in
    fiscal year 2000 than approved by Congress for fiscal year 1999, but
    will provide the much needed research in order to address the needs for
    a secure, efficient, and clean energy future. GRI strongly urges the
    Subcommittee to support the Administration's fiscal year 2000 gas-
    related budget as well as the recommendations of the gas industry.

       DOE GAS-RELATED FUNDING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERIOR AND
                          RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                       1999          2000
                                                   appropriation    request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fossil Energy:
        Natural Gas Supply......................           27.0        25.8
        Fuel Cells..............................           44.2        37.7
        Gas Turbines (ATS Utility Scale)........           44.5        41.8
                                                 ---------------------------
          Subtotal Gas-Related Fossil Energy....          115.7       105.3
                                                 ===========================
    Energy Efficiency:
        Industrial..............................           67.9        48.7
        Transportation..........................           34.4        31.2
        Buildings Technologies..................           12.2        20.5
        Power Technologies......................            3.0         5.5
                                                 ---------------------------
          Subtotal Gas-Related Energy Efficiency          117.5       105.9
                                                 ---------------------------
          Total Gas-Related (Subcommittee                 233.2       211.2
           Jurisdiction)........................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Richard Morrow, Vice President, Southern
    California Gas Company, and Chairman of the American Gas Cooling Center
        I am Rick Morrow, Vice President of Southern California Gas
    Company, a division of Sempra Energy. I am hear today to testify on
    behalf of the American Gas Cooling Center, an association of natural
    gas utilities, manufacturers and others interested in promoting natural
    gas cooling as an alternative or enhancement to other air conditioning
    and refrigeration choices. The Center, of which I serve as Vice
    Chairman, is comprised of over 150 utilities, 50 equipment
    manufacturers, and almost 100 other national and international
    organizations.
        Our association has a long history of successful cooperative
    research, development and demonstration projects with the Department of
    Energy. More importantly, we believe the need is greater now than ever
    to develop and commercialize gas cooling technology that saves energy,
    reduces emissions and provides lower cost options to consumers and
    businesses.
        In response to that critical need, we are specifically requesting
    the Subcommittee to provide a total of $12.0 million to the Department
    of Energy's Building, State and Community Programs to co-fund natural
    gas cooling research, development and demonstration with our industry
    partners. This request represents a $1 million increase over the
    President's budget.
        Our request for increased funding is being driven by the many
    changes facing today's residential and business energy consumers.
    Deregulation of the energy industry is increasing customer choice for
    energy services, while environmental regulations banning CFC
    production, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tightening indoor air
    quality standards will potentially increase their energy costs.
    Specifically, we expect that electric rates during summer electric
    peaks will remain high, and may even grow, while off peak electric
    rates may decrease.
        As the American energy industry becomes more horizontally
    integrated, utilities are no longer either gas OR electric. By way of
    example, my company recently merged with San Diego Gas and Electric and
    has a merger pending with KN Energy. Our company's interests have
    broadened, but our focus remains on providing the customer with the
    best energy solution.
        Fortunately, natural gas cooling technologies can often provide the
    most efficient and economical option for both our customers and for
    ourselves. Moreover, the latest generation of high efficiency turbines,
    micro-turbines, fuel cells, and other types of distributed generation
    can work in combination with these gas cooling technologies to
    dramatically increase overall energy efficiency. We are working with
    the Department of Energy's Roadmapping process to incorporate these
    combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) systems into new and existing
    buildings resulting in potential energy efficiency improvements of up
    to 40 percent.
        For the residential consumer, the American Gas Cooling Center is
    working cooperatively with DOE to complete development of a natural gas
    fired heat pump, the generator absorber exchange cycle (GAX). DOE has
    been conducting research for almost a decade and private industry has
    become very involved in the past couple years. In fact, two consortia
    of gas companies now exist to bring GAX to the market. As in a previous
    gas heat pump commercialization effort (engine driven) for which the
    gas industry committed over $14 million, we are willing to do the same
    for the GAX, should it prove as efficient and cost effective as
    preliminary DOE estimates. This technology, when commercialized, will
    provide consumers with a lower cost, high efficiency alternative to
    provide heating and cooling in their home. Current priorities in the
    cost shared program include field test of multiple units and continued
    component cost reduction and efficiency improvements.
        We have numerous other projects that are either under development
    or yet to be funded that will provide similar benefits to those I have
    already mentioned. However, additional funding is needed to bring these
    technologies to the consumer and to integrate them into the design
    process for residences and commercial buildings.
        We are very involved in cost shared research on desiccant
    technology. Moisture removal has long been an issue for modern space
    conditioning systems. When U.S. standards increased efficiency of
    building envelopes, they negatively impacted indoor air quality,
    thereby increasing air conditioning loads. New ASHRAE standards require
    more outside air, thereby bringing in more humidity. Desiccants'
    ability to remove moisture introduced by increased ventilation, can
    provide a comfortable indoor environment more efficiently and
    economically than conventional means. The gas industry views desiccant
    technology as a real energy efficiency opportunity and is supporting
    research and development jointly funded by industry partners, the Gas
    Research Institute and the DOE. In fiscal year 2000 our priorities
    include testing the performance of liquid desiccant prototypes and
    field test of a desiccant air pre-conditioner that can be fully
    integrated with electric air conditioning, as well as continued R&D
    into indoor air quality implications.
        In addition to these two programs, the industry continues to
    support demonstration of the triple effect absorption chiller at the
    Clark County Municipal Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. This technology,
    aimed at the large commercial market, is approximately 20 percent more
    efficient than the best available technology. In 1999 funding was
    provided to finish prototype fabrication and fiscal year 2000 funds
    will be sued to cost share installation and evaluation.
        Our final priority is in line with our recent roadmapping
    activities at DOE that incorporate combined cooling, heat and power in
    building applications. Our activities in that capacity have already
    produced one early need-design guidelines and criteria for integrating
    on site power generation in buildings. Current building design tools,
    such as DOEII and Energy 10, do not include on site power generation.
    Effectively utilizing waste heat can increase efficiency of our
    buildings' systems by 40 percent. We would like to see the current
    design tools enhanced or new tools developed to address combined
    cooling, heat and power. This activity, obviously, reaches beyond
    natural gas cooling; however, we see systems integration as a key to
    increased use of natural gas in space conditioning.
        In conclusion, we are very excited about the many economic and
    environmental benefits that will accrue from the continued development
    and commercialization of natural gas cooling technologies for both the
    residential and business customer. To achieve these benefits, the
    American Gas Cooling Center encourages the Subcommittee to provide a
    total of $12.0 million to the Department of Energy's Building, State
    and Community Programs to co-fund natural gas cooling research,
    development and demonstration projects.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Michael Dickens, Chief Executive Officer,
                 Integrated Building and Construction Solutions
        My name is Michael Dickens. I am the CEO of IBACOS (Integrated
    Building And Construction Solutions), a founding partner in the
    Department of Energy's Building America Program.
        IBACOS is made up of more than thirty leading companies from the
    homebuilding industry, including equipment manufacturers, builders,
    design firms, and other parties interested in improving the overall
    quality, affordability and efficiency of our nation's homes and
    communities. Although we are located in Pittsburgh, PA, our membership
    is derived from across the country and our associated building product
    manufacturers include Carrier Corporation of Indianapolis, IN, GE
    Appliances of Louisville, KY, USG Corporation of Chicago, IL, Kohler
    Company of Kohler, WI, GE Plastics of Pittsfield, MA, Owens Corning of
    Toledo, OH, and IBM of Raleigh, NC Our Builder Network includes such
    large builders and developers as Pulte Homes of Bloomfield Hills, MI
    RGC of Newport Beach, CA, Classic Homes of Colorado Springs, CO and
    Case Enterprises of Tucson, AZ. Other builders and developers in PA,
    IN, CA, GA, and MD, also participate.
        We have been working with the Department of Energy's Office of
    Building Systems since the start of the Building America Program in
    1993 (?). Along with three other consortia, we represent over 70
    residential builders, developers, designers, equipment suppliers and
    community planners, who have a common interest of improving the energy
    efficiency and livability of America's housing stock, while avoiding
    any increase in home costs. In pursuit of this goal the four partners
    in Building America pursue common activities that will ultimately
    assist all home builders, such as systems integration R&D to improve
    energy efficiency, indoor air quality and durability of housing,
    thermal distribution R&D, incorporation of passive and active solar
    techniques, techniques that reduce material waste at building sites,
    use of recycled and recyclable materials, and building materials
    improvements.
        We at IBACOS are excited about preliminary research results on
    systems integration. One of the major hurdles in homebuilding has been
    the issue of putting the home together on the building site in a way
    that maximizes integration of the various components and equipment
    within a house. Systems integration allows an airtight house in which
    subsystems are used together to optimize the home's engineering and
    otherwise increase the overall energy efficiency and rationality of the
    home. There have been a number of concrete and encouraging results from
    research, development and demonstration activities in cooperation with
    the Federal government. In fact, IBACOS, as a part of the Building
    America Program, has been able to demonstrate to production builders
    such as RGC Homes of California that they can build homes that save
    more than 40 percent in energy costs while avoiding any increase in
    initial builder costs. The rate of technology transfer from the
    national laboratories and the industry to the marketplace requires
    additional demonstration opportunities and we are glad to be working
    with DOE towards this end.
        We view one of our most important functions, however, as creating a
    resource of proven homebuilding methods for the tens of thousands of
    small home builders across the country. Because the home building
    industry consists of almost one hundred thousand small builders, some
    of whom build only a few houses a year, it is very difficult to bring
    innovations to this community. Building America partners, such as
    IBACOS have the ability to diffuse information throughout the building
    community. We are working to significantly expand the active team
    membership of Building America, but, perhaps more importantly, we are
    diffusing information to hundreds of builders through participation in
    national conferences, technical committees and the internet. We are
    working towards directly transferring systems innovations for homes to
    over 100,000 production homes in the next four years, which could save
    consumers approximately $50,000,000 in annual energy costs.
        Our understanding is that the Department's Office of Building,
    State and Community Programs has reorganized the Residential Buildings
    program. We are encouraged by this reorganization and, as such, are
    supporting the entire residential budget area. We are glad to see the
    Department join programs that rightly belong together: Building
    America, with industrialized and manufactured housing energy efforts
    and the new Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH).
        As an interested stakeholder in PATH, I think it is important to
    understand the relationship that program has with the Building America
    Program. PATH is a government-wide effort to improve the way America
    builds housing stock and takes into consideration all aspects of
    homebuilding. For this reason, HUD, DOE, NIST, EPA, NIOSH, OSHA,
    Commerce and a number of other government entities are involved. DOE's
    role is specific: improve the energy efficiency and livability of
    America's residential buildings while incurring no additional first
    cost. We have had no small measure of success and are working with PATH
    on demonstration communities that incorporate the Building America
    principles.
        IBACOS is supporting all of these efforts for the simple reason
    that they belong together. We in Building America are using several
    types of industrialized housing in some of our test homes and field
    developmental programs, and we are working with PATH communities as a
    part of Building America.
        One of the PATH communities is in Tucson, AZ. IBACOS, through the
    Building America program is working with the developer and builders on
    a 2600-home sustainable new town called Civano. The first test homes in
    this community are proving to be at least 60 percent more efficient
    than comparable homes and are costing only $150 per home more up front,
    while saving hundreds of dollars annually on energy bills for each home
    owner. Other communities in which Building America is serving as a
    partner with developers, builders and PATH are Village Green in
    California, Playa Vista in California, Summerset in Pittsburgh, and
    emerging communities in Denver, CO and in Florida.
        IBACOS intends to fully participate in any ``housing of the 21st
    century'' road mapping activities. We feel very strongly that the
    integration of the systems into a home is as important, or even more
    important, than the individual pieces of equipment that are installed.
    We have proven the ability to work with builders to build single pilot
    homes and support them through early adoption in their production
    lines. Now, we are very excited about our work with community planning
    and larger scale projects. We look forward to continuing to work with
    DOE to try to bring energy efficiency to housing at no incremental
    first cost, while building markets for efficient equipment.
        DOE plays a critical role in bringing this research, development
    and deployment agenda to the marketplace. Because the home building
    industry is made up of so many builders, suppliers, and equipment
    manufacturers, it is virtually impossible for them to come together to
    perform common research without a third party such as the DOE.
    Additionally, there has been little incentive in the building area for
    builders to improve on energy efficiency for a number of reasons.
    First, energy and resource efficiency does not necessarily contribute
    to the bottom line of the builder; instead, it benefits the homeowner
    and the nation. Because the builder cannot directly recoup costs for up
    front investments through energy savings (since he does not own the
    home), he has little reason to spend more initially. For this reason,
    we are working to make a better home for no incremental costs with the
    belief that, eventually, energy and resource efficiency, durability and
    affordability will be business as usual in the homebuilding industry.
    DOE's role in bringing together the right entities and cost sharing
    common research is therefore invaluable in fulfilling the social goods
    aspect of improving our nation's building stock, while we work to
    reduce up front builder costs.
        We at IBACOS urge you to approve the DOE fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for the Residential Buildings Program. Along with the industry
    cost share in the program of at least one hundred percent, this program
    can significantly catalyze improvements in what has traditionally been
    a very fractionalized homebuilding industry.
        Thank you for your attention today.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Eric L. Simpkins, Energy Research Corporation
        This testimony requests $19.5 million for the Energy Research
    Corporations portion of the U.S. Department of Energy's stationary fuel
    cell program within a $65 million budget for the overall stationary
    fuel cell program.
        This statement is provided in support of the U.S. Department of
    Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program. The DOE/ERC Cooperative
    Agreement (DE-FC21-95MC31184) defines that $19.5 million is needed in
    fiscal year 2000. Key activities for this period are to organize sub-
    megawatt and megawatt field trials, conduct sub-megawatt field trials
    at customer sites, and realize continued progress in reducing the cost
    of producing and installing Direct Fuel Cell--energy plants.
        ERC expresses its appreciation to the Subcommittee for its support
    of the stationary fuel cell program and the U.S. developers during the
    fiscal year 1999 appropriations and conference process. Federal support
    for the program makes the impressive accomplishments of the DOE program
    possible.
                                    summary
        Enduring support for the Direct Fuel Cell program by the Congress,
    the Administration, and the electric utility community is paying off.
    The final activities necessary to validate the technology, and complete
    the designs for a family of Direct Fuel Cell energy plants, are being
    completed. In 1997, the 2-megawatt Santa Clara proof-of-concept test
    was completed, providing the confidence to proceed, and the engineering
    information necessary for designing and building market-ready energy
    plants. ERC is proud to report another key milestone--the commissioning
    of a 250-kilowatt Direct Fuel Cell stack. The largest Direct Fuel Cell
    ever operated, it represents the building block for a family of energy
    plants that will begin entry into domestic markets late next year. We
    can also report that our German partner's fuel cell plant (containing
    the Direct Fuel Cell stack) will be made available for U.S. markets
    while, conversely, ERC's plant will be sold in Europe. Early adopters
    are queuing for acquisition of the first plants, and negotiations for
    field trials are underway in the U.S. and Europe. And significant
    progress has been made in rendering the Direct Fuel Cell energy plant
    affordable; the Direct Fuel Cell cost has been cut in half, and under
    the field trials initiative will be cut in half again.
                        evolving markets for fuel cells
        The process of restructuring of the electric utility industry is
    accelerating, making the case for completing the stationary fuel cell
    program promptly even more compelling. Over time this it is expected to
    lead to lower but more volatile electricity prices for larger
    customers, and potentially higher prices for smaller customers. Both
    volatility and higher prices for some consumers reflect continued
    dependence on the established grid, regardless of what entities
    generate, transmit and distribute electricity. Also, traditional and
    even newer central generation systems promulgate existing issues such
    as costly maintenance, environmental emissions, and lower than needed
    reliability. Dwindling capacity margins, from nearly 30 percent in the
    mid-1980's to less than 15 percent today, threatens power availability
    for everyone. This scenario bodes well for stationary fuel cell energy
    because fuel cells aggressively respond to each of these issues.
        Fuel cell energy plants are not large central generating systems.
    Because they are sited at the load center, dependence on the
    transmission & distribution grid is retired. Fuel cells are fuel
    flexible. Should the price of one fuel rise dramatically, another
    available fuel may be readily substituted until primary fuel prices
    again become affordable. Because fuel cells are a combustionless
    process, there is no rotating machinery. Consequently, operation and
    maintenance processes are vastly simplified and reduced in number,
    hence reliability will be greater than conventional systems. Lastly,
    smog producing emissions are at or below the limit of delectability,
    while greenhouse gas emissions are less than half those of traditional
    generation systems.
        The markets for stationary fuel cell energy plants are becoming
    increasingly stronger. New applications for distributed generation are
    being identified by user/buyers, accompanying a growing demand for
    field trials to gain operational familiarity and experience. ERC and
    its partners are conducting two projects that demonstrate the
    innovative applications for fuel cell generation developing in domestic
    markets:
      --An ethanol production facility in Nebraska, production-limited
            because of the quantity of its process waste effluent, will be
            employing an integrated high tech digester/fuel cell plant to
            pre-treat the effluent. The methane by-product will be consumed
            by the fuel cell to generate electricity and thermal energy
            needed for the ethanol production facility. This enables
            production capacity growth and increased competitiveness for
            the ethanol producer, while realizing the benefits of on-site
            fuel cell energy production.
      --An experimental greenhouse co-located with a county landfill in New
            Jersey will use the fuel cell and landfill gas to generate
            electricity and heat, as well as carbon dioxide needed for more
            rapid plant growth. This reduces energy costs for the grower,
            readies his produce for market faster, and productively uses
            otherwise environmentally damaging landfill gas.
                          achieving planned objectives
        ERC is committed to completing the DOE/ERC Cooperative Agreement
    while establishing field trials that will validate the commercial
    viability of these highly efficient and affordable energy plants. This
    is the last pre-commercialization effort necessary to validate plant
    designs, manufacturing processes, on-site installation procedures and
    fuel cell operations. Toward this objective, several milestones have
    been achieved and reported to this Subcommittee. In 1997, we described
    in testimony the completion of the 2-MW Santa Clara (CA) proof-of-
    concept test, which validated the carbonate fuel cell technology at a
    utility scale. Since that watershed event, design changes dictated by
    that test have been incorporated to optimize fuel cell performance and
    reduce cost. Last month, the pre-commercial version of a 250 kW Direct
    Fuel Cell stack (Figure 1) was commissioned at ERC's headquarters.
    Providing, virtually, an endless supply of electricity for corporate
    offices and engineering laboratories, this stack is the building block
    for a family of Direct Fuel Cell energy plants that will be available
    for domestic markets beginning in late 2000. A decade's investment in
    the Direct Fuel Cell by the Congress and our country is paying off as
    hoped, a testament to the enduring support of the Appropriations
    Committee, the Administration, and the electric utility industry.
        Optimizing the Direct Fuel Cell energy plant design to reduce cost
    is the thrust of our endeavors today. ERC believes the plant will
    achieve below market clearing prices of $1500 per kilowatt, established
    by the electric utility industry, upon reaching product maturity. This
    is a realistic expectation, validated through an independent audit by
    the DOE, in consideration of the progress since the Santa Clara proof-
    of-concept test. The power output from a single Direct Fuel Cell stack
    has been doubled, while its durability has increased several-fold. The
    engineered improvements coupled with the development of integral
    relationships with our suppliers have reduced Direct Fuel Cell cost by
    half. It is anticipated that the cost will be halved again through
    completion of field trials that will begin later this year.
        In the effort to condition markets worldwide for the Direct Fuel
    Cell energy plant, ERC is aggressively developing strategic
    partnerships and alliances. The Fuel Cell Commercialization Group, a
    utility consortium established in the early 1990's for buying the first
    energy plants, has supported ERC's efforts with market education and
    systems level requirements definition. More recently, ERC have
    established a cross-licensing relationship with the MTU division of
    Daimler Chrysler, our strategic partner in Europe. Under this
    arrangement MTU will provide 200-kilowatt class fuel cell plant, that
    employs the Direct Fuel Cell, for U.S. markets, while ERC will make
    available its megawatt-class Direct Fuel Cell energy plants to MTU for
    sales in European markets.
        With the partnerships and alliances being developed, Direct Fuel
    Cell energy plants such as, nominally, the 3-megawatt plant (Figure 2),
    as developed by ERC, will be sold worldwide. Additional members of the
    family of Direct Fuel Cell products will include a 200-kilowatt, and,
    nominally, 1.5 megawatt plants.
                              plans for completion
        ERC is committed to completing the DOE/ERC Cooperative Agreement on
    the existing schedule. This is dependent upon receiving the
    Department's share of funding to support this schedule. ERC has
    exceeded its cost share commitment, and will continue to meet or exceed
    its share. We remain eager to launch the family of proven Direct Fuel
    Cell energy plants into markets worldwide.
        To meet this ambitious goal, ERC is conducting the tasks necessary
    to complete the work defined in the Cooperative Agreement. The 250-
    kilowatt Direct Fuel Cell energy plant, generating electricity for our
    corporate headquarters facility, will continue operations throughout
    the summer. This unit is the largest operational advanced fuel cell
    energy plant in the U.S. today, representing the cooperative efforts of
    the Congress, Administration, and the electric utility industry in
    preparing the first advanced fuel cell for commercial markets. It
    validates the design of the prototypic commercial fuel cell stack that
    launches sub-megawatt and megawatt-class field trials.
        Field trials are being developed with U.S. and European utilities
    to showcase the Direct Fuel Cell, build user confidence in the multi-
    level benefits of fuel cells, and attract the investment needed to
    establish a broad manufacturing capability. The first of these field
    trials will be conducted in Bielefeld, Germany beginning later this
    year, while negotiations are underway for the first domestic projects.
        Concurrently, ERC is focused on reducing the production cost of the
    Direct Fuel Cell, and simplifying overall energy plant design. As the
    Direct Fuel Cell approaches product maturity following field trials,
    the plant cost will cross the market clearing price line. Highly
    efficient electricity and heat generation, combined with super clean
    emissions, will offer users remarkable value. These flexible energy
    plants will engender a wide variety of uses including electric and gas
    utilities, reliability and power quality applications, rural and on-
    farm generation, electric service for ships, landfill sites, industrial
    cogeneration, and environmentally sensitive areas.
                                   conclusion
        The many changes in the electric utility industry are driving
    customer interest in new generation technologies. The Direct Fuel Cell
    technology has been proven in hundreds of thousands of hours of testing
    worldwide to meet specifications and the expectations of those
    interests that will use them to solve problems of cost, power
    reliability and availability. Early adopters are eager to apply fuel
    cells to solve existing challenges or preclude the impacts of electric
    utility industry deregulation. Its many benefits invite innovators to
    study applications never before considered.
        Bipartisan support has propelled the stationary fuel cell program
    through the many years of study, experimentation and testing. Today, at
    the threshold of market entry, continued support is needed to complete
    the task. ERC sincerely appreciates the work of the Subcommittee and
    the Department of Energy in behalf of the stationary fuel cell program.
    We request that the Direct Fuel Cell program be funded in fiscal year
    2000 at $19.5 million within a $65 million stationary fuel cell budget
    that represents the aggregate need of the U.S. developers.
                                     ______

                             OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
               National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
    Prepared Statement of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of
                                   New Mexico
        Request: A one-time $3 million appropriation from the National Park
    Service to the University of New Mexico that will match private funds
    for the construction of a facility for the storage and research of
    archeological holdings located at UNM. These include the estimated 1.5
    million artifacts from the Chaco Culture National Historic Park, a
    UNESCO World Heritage Site also listed on the National Register of
    Historic Places. This research collection is held jointly by NPS and
    UNM.
        Background: The Maxwell Museum of Anthropology at the University of
    New Mexico houses and interprets a world-renowned and priceless
    collection of cultural materials from around the world. More than half
    of this collection focuses on the Anasazi (Early Pueblo) culture of the
    American Southwest centered in world-renowned Chaco Canyon, one of only
    two UNESCO World Heritage Sites in North America, which is managed by
    NPS.
        The Chaco holdings at Maxwell include archeological artifacts as
    well as the extensive archival inventory of field notes, reports,
    architectural descriptions and photographs that gives the artifacts
    cultural meaning and preserves their original locations of use. Since
    the 1930s, UNM and NPS have worked collaboratively on the archeological
    research, education, publication and curation of collections from this
    site. Significantly, it has been this long archeological collaboration
    that has provided much of the expertise and information that enabled
    the stabilization and long-term preservation of the unique architecture
    of Chaco Canyon, thus enabling it to become an important part of the
    nation's cultural heritage.
        In addition, under a regularly renewed Cooperative Agreement
    between NPS and UNM, the curatorial staffs of the Maxwell Museum and
    the Chaco Culture National Historic Park jointly curate the
    collections. In this regard, the missions of the agencies coincide and
    include the long-recognized need to store the collections in a facility
    that is adequately equipped to house them and to ensure their use by
    scholars and availability to the general public. The 1995 Cooperative
    Agreements states that ``The University and the Service will continue
    to work collaboratively towards the planning and implementation of
    long-range goals for the Collection e.g. the Inter-Agency/University
    Research facility.''
        The Maxwell Museum also houses major collections from all of the
    other prominent archeological cultures of the Southwest region as well
    as many other parts of the world, all of which will be consolidated in
    the proposed facility. The best known of these is the collection of
    Mimbres material of southwestern New Mexico that was recovered during
    the 1960s and 1970s by the Mimbres Project of the Maxwell Museum. This
    decade-long archeological salvage program excavated many of the
    surviving Mimbres sites during a time of rapid land development and
    looting, and in so doing, it added immeasurably to the understanding of
    this brilliant culture.
        The Maxwell holds many of the rare remains of the earliest human
    occupation of the Western United States, including artifacts of Clovis
    and Folsom hunters recovered from such famous early sites as Blackwater
    Draw, the Folsom site and Sandia Cave. These are accompanied by equally
    important paleolithic collections from the Old World that include some
    of the best documented collections from Western Europe and East Africa.
    Finally, the Maxwell holds major collections from the important
    Mogollon civilization of present-day Arizona and the Casas Grandes
    culture of Chihuahua, Mexico.
        Need: The UNM/NPS Chaco project and several others that have
    contributed to UNM's prominence in the fields of anthropology and
    archeology continue to grow. Given the growth over the past 70 years,
    the available space for storage and laboratory research has become
    increasingly inadequate both in quantity and quality. The more than
    five million artifacts currently held by the Maxwell are housed in five
    different buildings, none that entirely meets the stringent standards
    demanded by museum professionals and the NPS or by general federal (36
    CFR 79) guidelines. Environmental and climatic controls, fire detection
    and suppression, and security are less than optimal. Serious
    overcrowding has limited the access of scholars intent on research and
    of the general public seeking to view the remains of one of the world's
    great prehistoric civilizations. Thus the collection and its
    educational value are underutilized.
        New Building Project: The Maxwell Museum and the Chaco Culture
    National Historic Park, with the backing of their parent institutions,
    have jointly developed a plan to address these urgent needs by building
    a new curatorial and research facility adjacent to the Maxwell on the
    University of New Mexico campus. The goals of this project are to
    curate and preserve the archeological holdings; to make them available
    for study, interpretation and public exhibition; and to generate
    research and informational programs in accordance with the university's
    education mission and that of NPS to bring national heritage to the
    general public.
        In support of these goals, UNM has received a commitment of $3
    million toward the construction costs from a private donor. A further
    $3 million is required to complete the storage/research facility in
    accordance with preliminary plans completed by UNM-sponsored
    architects. Architectural plans and estimated costs accompany this
    document.
        The new facility will house the Maxwell Museum and Chaco Culture
    National Historic Park archeological artifacts, archives and related
    photographic documentation, thereby consolidating components stored in
    several different areas and benefiting users by having all materials
    related to Chaco Canyon stored in one location. The facility will
    conform fully to federal standards of curation required by 36 CFR 79
    and will accommodate the current collection as well as anticipated
    growth for the next fifty years. In addition to the collection storage
    areas, the facility will include research laboratories and work space
    for the curatorial staff from UNM and NPS; a teaching area, a research
    library and archive containing the Chaco Canyon-related materials; on-
    line access to catalog data and Internet access at all workstations;
    and a conservation laboratory, visible storage for the most popular
    component of the collection (Southwestern pottery and basketry) and
    space dedicated for the use and study of the collections by Native
    Americans.
        Impact: The educational potential is almost unlimited, with the
    facility serving as a dynamic laboratory for archeological and cultural
    preservation training by NPS and UNM conservators and curators as well
    as a center for innovative public education, outreach and
    interpretation programs. K-12 students and the general public will
    benefit from the increased use of the collections in the Maxwell
    Museum's outreach, public and exhibition programs, which now reach more
    than forty thousand children, adults and senior citizens each year. The
    increased work space and laboratory facilities will encourage
    University students and professional scholars to conduct research on
    the artifacts and in the archives, thereby increasing the understanding
    of the history of Southwestern cultures and enhancing the public
    appreciation of the rich cultural resources of New Mexico and the
    Southwest.
        Because of its integral participation in the development of the
    research facility, the NPS will be able to expand its existing
    relationships with other federal agencies and with Native American
    tribes. For instance, the NPS has long maintained a close working
    relationship with the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Division with
    regard to the examination and care of archeological sites located near
    Chaco Canyon on Navajo lands. This work is essential to the full
    understanding of the Chaco people in their regional context during the
    Anasazi period. This collaboration has been severely hampered by the
    inability of the NPS to store, analyze and curate the materials
    resulting from the work. The new facilities will resolve this problem.
    The central location of the facility in Albuquerque will also enhance
    the NPS ability to consult with its many affiliated tribes on
    collection use and NAGPRA compliance issues. Moreover, a major goal of
    the Maxwell Museum is to open its doors for training and participation
    of Native American people in museum management activities. The NPS is
    fully supportive of this goal and feels that the new center will
    further its ability to incorporate native views, perspectives and
    concerns into the planning of its collections management strategies.
        The presence of a major archeological research center on the UNM
    campus in close proximity to related disciplinary centers such as
    Biology, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Native American Studies and the
    Center for Southwest Research will facilitate interdisciplinary
    research. In the past eight decades, research on the Chaco Canyon
    collections has generated 45 graduate dissertations and theses. With an
    increased potential for inter-disciplinary education, even greater
    productivity is expected in the coming decades as the collection
    catalog (now at 90 percent) is completed and computerized information
    is made accessible. This increased research will greatly expand UNM's
    ability to develop innovative public programming, enhancing
    interpretive programs and exhibits in the Maxwell Museum and the Chaco
    Culture National Historic Park.
        In recognition of the importance of these collections for such
    future work, the Society for American Archaeology, which is the
    national professional body for archeology, solidly supports this
    project. The new research facility represents a rare example of a
    university--federal--private partnership in the vital area of
    collections care and management. It also pioneers the full integration
    of curation and education in a comprehensive mission that will provide
    unusual opportunities for both the academic community and the general
    public to expand their knowledge of the past and develop greater
    awareness of the richness and diversity of our national heritage.

                                                     SUMMARY BUDGET
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Federal grant
                                                                  Cost         funds      Matching funds     Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consultant Fees: Architecture/Engineering................  .........     $202,366.50     $202,366.50    $404,733
    Equipment:
        Furnishings..........................................   $225,000      112,500.00      112,500.00     225,000
        Data/Telecommunications..............................    200,000      100,000.00      100,000.00     200,000
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................  .........      212,500.00      212,500.00     425,000
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
    Construction.............................................  4,761,563    2,380,781.50    2,380,781.50   4,761,563
    Other:
        Project Contingency..................................    101,205       50,602.50       50,602.50     101,205
        Project Administration \1\...........................    307,500      153,750.00      153,750.00     307,500
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................  .........      204,352.50      204,352.50     408,705
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Total Budget Costs.................................  .........    3,000,000.00    3,000,000.00  6,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes UNM Utility Charges of $240,000 (4 percent of budget) to bring utilities to the site and to pay for
      increase in power supply.

                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Edward H. Able, Jr., President and CEO, American
                             Association of Museums
        My name is Edward H. Able, Jr. I am President and C.E.O. of the
    American Association of Museums (AAM), the national museum organization
    that has helped America's museums and their staffs serve communities
    and families since 1906.
        For over 30 years, the Federal cultural agencies have provided
    invaluable financial assistance to museums of every kind, from art
    museums and aquariums to youth museums and zoos, in their mission to
    serve and educate the public. I urge you to bolster this effort in
    fiscal year 2000 by funding the National Endowment for the Humanities
    (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the levels
    requested in the President's budget. In addition, I encourage you to
    substantially increase the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the
    Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to $40 million. This
    increase would accommodate both the president's budget request of
    $10.45 million for new technology and leadership initiatives as well as
    the museum community's request of $6 million for a much needed boost
    for major programs, such as General Operating Support (GOS) grants,
    which have been level funded for several years. As my time is very
    limited, I will simply underscore the critical support the NEH and NEA
    provide museums, and will focus my attention on the importance to
    museums of OMS General Operating Support (GOS) funds. General operating
    support funds for museums, though fundamental, are very difficult to
    obtain from foundations or corporations, which generally prefer to fund
    higher profile programs. A museum's ability to serve its community well
    stems from the health of the museum's most basic operations. Funding
    for such operations are the most difficult to obtain.
                                the museum boom
        Over the past ten years museums have witnessed a huge increase in
    attendance. For evidence, we do not have to look further than down the
    street to the National Gallery of Art, which during the Van Gogh
    exhibition accommodated 5,339 visitors a day for a total of 480,496
    visitors. The new California Science Center had over 2 million visitors
    in the last year. There are more examples from 1998: An exhibition of
    Leonardo da Vinci's ``Codex Leicester'' at the Seattle Art Museum had
    2,916 visitors a day; ``Titanic: The Exhibition,'' drew approximately
    5,000 visitors a day for a total of about 830,000 visitors to The
    Florida International Museum in Saint Petersburg, Florida; and The New
    York Historical Society during ``Treasures from Mount Vernon: George
    Washington Revealed'' served 45,264 visitors in a three month period.
        This is not simply a blockbuster phenomenon. According to a recent
    and conservative AAM estimate, museums get 865 million visits per year
    compared with around 600 million only a decade ago. That's an
    impressive 2.3 million visits to American museums per day. More people
    visit American museums today than in any time in history. And this
    trend shows no sign of slowing down.
        This attendance boom is not just at our nation's biggest
    institutions. The Telfair Museum of Art, Savannah, Georgia, the oldest
    art museum in the South, has seen its attendance double over the last
    four years to 146,000 per year. And this increase in popularity is not
    just for art museums--museums of all types and sizes are being built,
    expanded, or renovated to serve the needs of children, families, and
    life-long learners. We estimate that $4.3 billion will be spent on
    museum construction between 1998 and 2000 and that more than 150
    museums will be built or expanded during the same period.
        So what are the reasons for this boom? While no doubt our healthy
    economy is a major contributor, the real reason for museums' popularity
    goes much deeper. Museums are now benefiting from the results of their
    efforts to reach out to communities and families, which was key among
    recommendations put forth to the field six years ago in AAM's landmark
    report Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of
    Museums. This report urged museums to become social and community
    centers and to ensure that ``they are an integral part of the
    multifaceted human experience.''
        Museums have become what a recent supplement in the Washington Post
    dubbed ``The New Town Square,'' ``offering everything from jazz
    concerts to education forums'' while remaining places of learning for
    children, families and adults; of scholarly research; and quiet
    contemplation of beauty, our cultural heritage, and civilizations past
    and present. No doubt museums are succeeding because they invest
    tremendous resources to ensure that they are both intellectually
    understandable and that they meet real community needs.
        To demonstrate the impact of the Office of Museum Services at IMLS,
    I turn back to the Telfair Museum. The museum was awarded a 1998 OMS
    General Operating Support grant of $112,500 (GOS grants span two years)
    to help support market research to determine what Savannah wants from
    the museum and incorporate the findings into its new building and
    mission. According to the museum, this GOS grant will help take its
    service to the community ``to another dimension.''
                         needs resulting from the boom
        1. Infrastructure Stress.--More than ever, museums are being asked
    to be many things to many people. They greet this call with enthusiasm
    and a strong sense of responsibility. However, all this success places
    tremendous demands on infrastructure. With regard to art museums, for
    example, it costs an average of $38 per visitor while the average
    admission charge per visitor is $1.46. With the huge increases in
    attendance, the main reason for establishing the OMS in 1976--``to ease
    the financial burden borne by museums as a result by their increasing
    use by the public'' (Public Law 94-462, Title II, Museum Services
    Act)--has never been more true than today. According to a recent AAM
    survey, almost 90 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. Only 8 percent
    believe that the museum community has adequate resources to cope with
    the critical issues in the near future--especially funding issues.
        One of the hallmarks of GOS grants is their flexibility. While
    these awards cannot be used for construction or renovation, they can be
    used for a multitude of purposes from education programs, to
    collections care, to providing increased access to collections via
    technology. For example, the Utah Museum of Natural History in Salt
    Lake City received $112,500 that it will use in part to hire additional
    security guards to meet the demands of increased attendance. The museum
    had received state operating support funds, which allowed it to extend
    its hours, which in turn had led to increased use by the public. The
    museum also has an insect infestation problem, which threatens a very
    important ethnographic collection. The funds will be used to rent very
    large cold storage trailers to freeze the artifacts and eliminate the
    infestation. In addition, the collections storage room will be sealed
    and fumigated to ensure the long-term safety of the collection.
        Another example of GOS being used for critical collections care is
    the Bisbee Mining and Historical Museum in Bisbee, Arizona. This museum
    will use its $39,140 GOS grant in part to help preserve its highly
    regarded collection of 25,000 historic photographs, which are in need
    of proper archiving and storage. According to the museum, archival
    supplies are very expensive and it is especially difficult for small
    museums to find the resources to care for collections at the level of
    current professional standards. GOS is the only funding they can find
    for collections care.
        2. Education.--While education has long been critical to museums,
    in recent years it has moved to the forefront of their public service
    missions. Museums are a tool of learning for us all. They put us in
    touch with the past. They bring us information about history's
    successes and failures. Museums help us make real choices today as we
    learn to value who we are, where we came from, and what we have. For
    children, museums open new and wonderful doors to the universe. They
    broaden our children's horizons, enrich their lives and introduce them
    to new opportunities and experiences. Museums help young people to
    learn and grow for the future.
        We know from a recent OMS survey that museums in the U.S. spend
    $193 million annually on K-12 programs and provide nearly 4 million
    hours on educational programs such as guided field trips, staff visits
    to schools, and traveling exhibits in schools. 88 percent of America's
    museums now provide K-12 educational programming. Seventy percent of
    museums have at least one full-time paid staff who offers K-12
    educational programming. More schools everywhere recognize the value of
    museum resources and are taking advantage of them. Museums' commitment
    to education programs for schools is increasing: Over 70 percent of
    museums surveyed report an increase in numbers of students, teachers
    and schools served in the last five years.
        Museums use GOS funds to support their education missions,
    including expanding geographic outreach.--For example, the Museum of
    New Mexico in Santa Fe will use its $112,500 GOS grant to continue
    circulating its ``education van'' throughout the state. In this
    program, museum staff go through intensive planning (working with
    community leaders) to meet community needs. For example, staff worked
    with Navajo elders of Crownpoint who were concerned that their weaving
    traditions were not being passed on to future generations. Museum staff
    brought artifacts to study and held weaving, tutoring, and mentoring
    classes with the elders, to ensure this important tradition will
    continue. The ``education van'' has been to 30 communities in its first
    fourteen months of operation. According to the museum, this program
    would not have happened without IMLS funding, which attracted funding
    from five additional sources--giving yet another example of how
    relatively small amounts of Federal funding leverages significant
    public and private support at the state and local levels.
        For the Green Mountain Audubon Nature Center in Huntington,
    Vermont, which has an island sanctuary for endangered species on Lake
    Champlain, a GOS grant of $42,700 was ``a shot of whole blood.'' The
    museum was able to keep the educator it employed on a seasonal basis
    and work him into all of its on-site and outreach education programs
    throughout the year. The museum hopes to use this grant to build a
    constituency for their outreach program so it can stand on its own when
    the grant runs out--as happened at the Arizona State Museum, which
    received ESEA Title I funding from local schools to sustain a program
    begun with GOS funds.
        3. Technology.--Our country's museums house an enormous wealth of
    information for scholarly research and public education--more than 700
    million objects and associated documentation of our cultural, artistic,
    and scientific heritage. However, a museum at any one time has only
    approximately five to ten percent of its collection on exhibition, and
    access to objects in storage is necessarily restricted.
        Before the advent of the digital age, museums were only able to
    share their collections with the public in teaspoon amounts to on-site
    visitors. Now, however, museums are leaders in developing interactive
    exhibits and applying new technologies to increase their accessibility
    through distance education. ``Virtual visits'' and school programming
    via satellite, one and two-way video, over the Internet, or with a
    combination of these and other communications technologies, can
    supplement the more than 865 million actual visits each year to
    America's museums.
        A $60,439 GOS grant will allow the Sheldon Museum and Cultural
    Center in Haines, Alaska to hire a specialist curator to enter their
    entire collection, including local pioneer-transportation, mining,
    local industries, Tlingit and other northwest coast Native American
    artifacts, on computer for access by the public. For part of the
    grant's matching requirement, the museum was able to leverage a digital
    camera so they can sustain the process of providing the public on-line
    access to their collection.
        Similarly, the Hood Museum of Art in Hanover, New Hampshire is
    using part of its $112,500 GOS grant to fund full time staff for data
    collection and digitizing of their collection. The grant has enabled
    the museum to provide an impressive level of detail about its
    collection so that any student or faculty member at any time can access
    the collection for meaningful study. This effort has brought the museum
    into a closer relationship with students who are increasingly taking
    advantage of all of the museum's resources. The museum would not have
    been able to serve the students and faculty so well without this
    funding.
        But such examples are too few, too sporadic, and have only begun to
    scratch the surface--fewer than ten percent of the nation's museums
    have websites at this time. While 90 percent of the nation's teachers
    believe that using the Internet boosts student achievement and prepares
    students for a future requiring technological literacy, 60 percent of
    the teachers are concerned about the quality of on-line content. The
    president's budget calls for $5 million to make museum resources part
    of a National Digital Library for Education. This funding is part of a
    $30 million initiative to create a digital library that could be used
    in American classrooms and throughout the world. The library will
    include special collections from the Park Service and Smithsonian, math
    and science resources from the National Science Foundation, and through
    IMLS, books and museum collections.
        In addition, the president's budget calls for $7.6 million for OMS
    National Leadership Grants for Museums, such as Museums Online to help
    museums use technology to create regional electronic networks, support
    networked museums through training and technical assistance, share best
    practices in the development of educational resources and implement and
    upgrade Internet access at museums. These well-timed initiatives would
    provide much needed coordination and focus facilitating museums'
    efforts to provide distance education and increased access to their
    collections. 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's critical to make the same advances for museum
    collections, if we are to maximize their potential impact on the
    education of our youth.
        4. Other GOS Statistics.--While need has increased, the OMS has
    shrunk, despite an exemplary record. Funding has dropped dramatically
    since fiscal year 1995, when it was $28.7 million, to today's level of
    $23.4 million. This has meant that the General Operating Support
    program was able to fund only 20 percent of applications in fiscal year
    1998 versus 26 percent in fiscal year 1995, and down from a high of
    46.3 percent in fiscal year 1981. The 20 percent figure is very low
    when you consider outside peer reviewers determining that 59 percent
    were worthy of funding. While GOS grants can be used for multiple
    purposes, 88 percent of grantees use their awards to improve visitor
    services, while 94 percent enhance their educational programs.
        The proposed $40 million is modest relative to the demonstrated
    need. Funding all of the recommended applications would cost nearly $65
    million. Nevertheless, $40 million would significantly increase the
    ability of the agency to help a broader range of museums across the
    country to reach out to their publics and use the OMS award to leverage
    more private funding. The number of awards would increase significantly
    and while most of those additional awards would be small grants, they
    would have a strong multiplier effect on private and state funds for
    the recipient museums, given past experience. Additional funding would
    also help museums increase and enhance services to local school systems
    and other community organizations.
        In closing, the OMS is of enormous support to the museum field
    beyond providing GOS grants. OMS provides much needed funding for
    conservation, professional development, important leadership
    initiatives and awards which ``shine a spotlight'' on best practices
    and replicable programs, and also funds a critical program to improve
    individual museums' standards and performance--the Museum Assessment
    Program, which is produced by AAM. Let me just end by applauding the
    OMS as an incredibly efficient and effective agency. With its staff of
    20, OMS's total non-program costs--including research--are 6.3 percent
    of requested funding, less than its authorized cap of 10 percent. Over
    93 percent of all dollars go directly to museums.
        The public's expectations of museums are higher today than ever
    before, and they are likely to continue to rise. Museums are facing the
    challenge to meet and exceed these expectations. I urge you to answer
    this challenge in partnership with us and ask that you recommend
    funding for the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the Institute of
    Museum and Library Services (IMLS) at $40 million and recommend funding
    for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National
    Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the levels requested in the President's
    budget.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Symphony Orchestra League
        On behalf of America's orchestras, the American Symphony Orchestra
    League urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2000 funding for
    the National Endowment for the Arts at the level of $150 million, as
    requested in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
        Grants from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) play a key
    role in orchestras' efforts to bring musical performances of the
    highest quality to the largest possible number of Americans. Supported
    by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators and community
    leaders, America's adult, youth, and college orchestras total more than
    1,800 and exist in every state and territory, in cities and rural areas
    alike. They engage more than 76,000 instrumentalists in playing
    positions, employ (with and without pay) more than 11,000
    administrative staff, attract more than 250,000 volunteers, and
    annually perform nearly 30,000 concerts to total audiences nearing 31
    million. The federal commitment to the arts, as embodied by the NEA, is
    irreplaceable to this multitude of individuals involved in the
    orchestra field.
        While the fiscal year 2000 request for the NEA represents a
    substantial increase in funding over the current level of $98 million,
    the President's request for $150 million is still well below the $167.4
    million in 1995 funding that preceded the drastic 40 percent cuts to
    the NEA in 1996. The NEA has since significantly restructured its
    grant-making process to make the most of the limited resources
    available to serve the cultural needs of our country, and has now
    further defined a method for serving those needs with additional
    funding, embodied in a proposal titled Challenge America.
                               challenge america
        Challenge America will provide support to state arts agencies and
    arts organizations for activities in five specific areas: Access to the
    Arts, Arts Education, Cultural/Heritage Preservation, Youth-At-Risk,
    and Community Arts Partnerships. Through these areas, the NEA seeks to
    reinforce its commitment to make the arts more central to American
    families and to strengthen the arts infrastructure in communities that
    are underserved by the arts.
                               access to the arts
        The NEA currently supports programs at the national, state, and
    local level that serve to increase access to the arts throughout the
    country. In response to concerns about the distribution of NEA funds,
    the agency created a new program, titled ArtsREACH, which is designed
    to encourage grant applications from arts organizations and community-
    based coalitions in 20 states considered underrepresented by direct NEA
    grants. After a representative from the Sioux City Symphony Orchestra
    attended an ArtsREACH grants seminar, the Orchestra successfully
    applied for an fiscal year 1999 grant through the NEA's Creation &
    Presentation category.
        The $7,500 grant enables the Sioux City Symphony Orchestra to bring
    musicians to small communities whose residents are unable to travel to
    Sioux City for performances. The Orchestra is currently implementing
    the grant, which supports outreach concerts and educational residencies
    in neighboring communities in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
        Through collaborations with local community centers, schools,
    churches, and educational institutions, the orchestra will perform four
    specialized concerts in rural areas. In one such collaboration, an
    unprecedented partnership between chamber players and the nearby
    Winnebago tribe will culminate in a performance that reflects Winnebago
    traditions. The outreach programs of the orchestra also focus on
    sending string musicians to schools for interactive sessions called
    Informances. Students in classrooms in rural Iowa, many of whom have
    never heard a stringed instrument performed in-person, can listen,
    learn, and test out the instruments of Sioux City musicians.
        Thanks to the recent grant, the Orchestra will expand education
    programs to reach a larger number of schools that have requested to
    participate in the Informances program. Likewise, the collaboration
    with the Winnebago tribe would not be possible without the support
    provided by the NEA and the additional community support the grant
    leverages. The Orchestra is currently attracting new funding through
    publicizing its NEA grant award in requests for contributions from
    corporate sponsors, individual donors, and subscribers, and through
    press releases and newspaper coverage.
                                 arts education
        Results from the NEA-supported 1997 National Assessment of
    Educational Progress in the Arts demonstrate that arts literacy
    provides the creative and communications skills necessary for today's
    students to succeed in tomorrow's workplace. In its 34-year history,
    the NEA has maintained a strong commitment to promoting the benefits of
    early childhood learning in the arts, establishing arts education as a
    core subject in the K-12 curriculum, and supporting the lifelong
    learning opportunities offered by arts organizations.
        An fiscal year 1998 Education & Access NEA grant currently supports
    Arts in Community Education (ACE), an interdisciplinary education
    program of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. In addition to requiring
    that participating schools employ at least one full-time music
    specialist, ACE integrates the arts into all subject matters, offering
    in-service training and a summer curriculum workshop to all
    participating teachers. Teachers then tailor the ACE curriculum for use
    in their own classrooms.
                         cultural heritage/preservation
        In order to preserve the rich traditions of our cultural heritage,
    the NEA supports projects that increase public awareness of and
    participation in uniquely American arts forms. Creative music and
    performance traditions are supported through the NEA's American Jazz
    Fellowships and National Heritage Fellowships, and through direct
    grants to arts organizations.
        An fiscal year 1998 Heritage & Preservation grant to the Atlanta
    Symphony Orchestra supported a showcase of works by African-American
    composers in a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration. NEA-sponsored
    activities included: a January 1998 concert by the Atlanta Symphony
    with the Glee Clubs of Morehouse College and Spellman College; national
    and European broadcasts of the concert; production of compact discs of
    works by African-American composers; and performances and master
    classes for area college students.
                                 youth-at-risk
        An NEA-supported publication, Art Works!: Prevention Programs for
    Youth & Communities, confirms that students who participate in
    organized arts activities are significantly less likely to abuse drugs
    or alcohol. Orchestra's programs for at-risk youth have further
    demonstrated that arts participants develop higher self-esteem, are
    more likely to remain in school, and are more likely to attend college.
        Orchestras across the country, in small rural communities and large
    urban centers, collaborate with teachers and community service
    organizations to identify students that may be at risk of substance
    abuse or gang activity, and offer learning opportunities for at-risk
    youth during the school day and afterschool, weekends, and summers. At-
    risk youth who participate in music programs experience the joy of
    creativity, the discipline required to learn new skills, and the
    satisfaction of participating in a safe community of peers and mentors.
                          community arts partnerships
        Challenge America would support a collaborative effort to assist
    community renewal through the arts. These projects range from
    developing arts-related solutions for economic and social issues, to
    increasing public awareness of the importance of the arts. Long-term
    community arts partnerships have proven to stabilize arts organizations
    in their communities and, particularly in the case of orchestras, been
    key to audience development efforts.
        An NEA grant created a new community partnership in support of the
    Billings Symphony Orchestra. The Orchestra's outreach program for
    residents of rural, tribal, and urban southeast Montana and northeast
    Wyoming includes the Annual Free Youth Concert. An fiscal year 1998 NEA
    grant of $5,000 leveraged matching support from the Stillwater Mining
    Company, a first-time contributor to the Orchestra, and a significant
    employer in Montana. While the Annual Free Youth Concert is typically
    limited to one free performance by the full orchestra, the Stillwater
    Mining Company's contribution made possible a second free concert in
    January, raising the combined attendance to number more than 2,300.
        One audience member expressed his appreciation for the performance
    opportunity and for the Mining Company's support: ``Since my limited
    income does not allow me to attend concerts more regularly, I
    especially appreciate the efforts of the Stillwater Mining Company and
    other sponsors who make it possible for the community at large to
    attend the fine programs produced by the Symphony. Groups like the SMC
    who sponsor such things show that they care for the Billings community,
    and by so doing gain much support for what they desire to accomplish in
    their business.''
        The Symphony's outreach program also includes, Rural Rhythms, a
    partnership with four rural counties, through which the Billings
    Symphony Orchestra sends musicians as individuals and in pairs to
    perform in informal settings. After front-page promotion and coverage
    in the Rosebud County Press, one such performance attracted 15 percent
    of the Colstrip population, which numbers near 500. One Colstrip
    resident expressed her thanks: ``I just wanted to commend the Billings
    Symphony on their program that allows those of us who live in rural
    communities the opportunity to see and hear such wonderful musicians
    and ambassadors of the Billings Symphony.'' Another audience member
    commented, ``I believe you will have a few more Colstrip people attend
    the Billings Symphony after Tuesday night's performance . . .''
        In sum, the NEA grant to the Billings Symphony Orchestra has
    sparked a new partnership between art and industry, increased access to
    live performances, and helped the orchestra to build future audiences.
        The Challenge America initiative will devote $50 million in funding
    to provide crucial opportunities for community arts programs, such as
    those described above. In conceiving this initiative, the NEA consulted
    with the state arts agencies and other government agencies,
    representatives from arts organizations, and the private sector to
    forge an agenda that will further increase investments in the arts,
    ensure access to the arts, promote individual creative endeavors, and
    advance learning. On behalf of America's orchestras, we urge the Senate
    to approve $150 million in fiscal year 2000 support for the National
    Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of B. Lester Abberger, III on Behalf of the
                    Federation of State Humanities Councils
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    privilege of speaking to you today on behalf of the state humanities
    councils. My name is Lester Abberger. I serve on the board of directors
    of the Florida Humanities Council and the Federation of State
    Humanities Councils. I live in Tallahassee, Florida where I work as the
    senior vice president of the Florida Water Services Corporation.
        I am here today on behalf of the National Endowment for the
    Humanities and more specifically the state humanities councils to
    advocate funding as requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget in the
    amount of $150 million for the NEH and $39.13 million for the Federal-
    State Partnership.
        My involvement in the Florida Humanities Council began in 1989 when
    I was asked to participate in an ambitious experiment in participatory
    democracy called the ``Governor's Challenge Conference.'' Each year the
    governor of Florida and the Florida Humanities Council chose a topic to
    be discussed by regional and statewide citizens' groups throughout the
    state in a process that would culminate in a list of recommendations
    presented to the Governor and the state legislature. The year that I
    participated the topic was ``Medical Ethics: The Have and Have Knots of
    Health Care.'' Our group, composed of civic activists, medical
    professionals and business leaders, explored and debated the choices we
    face in the allocation of health care resources, terminal illness,
    long-term care for the elderly and health care education.
        The Governor's Challenge Conferences provided political leadership
    with thoughtful recommendations, rooted in the informed concerns of the
    various constituencies of the state and enlightened by the perspectives
    of the humanities. These public discussions allowed us to not only
    examine options in thoughtful ways but to inquire about the values
    implicit in the choices. The most distinctive aspect of these programs,
    however, was that they were rooted in the humanities. With the help of
    humanities scholars we looked at what philosophy, history, religious
    studies and literature tell us about the things that really matter most
    to us as individuals and as a society. In the medical community, where
    we often look to science and technology for solutions, we found that
    the perspectives of the humanities challenged our assumptions and
    opened our minds to entirely new possibilities.
        My story is not unlike those of Americans in every state who have
    been educated and enriched by the public humanities. For nearly 30
    years humanities councils in all 50 states have sponsored and funded
    programs that bring citizens together to discuss history, literature,
    ethics, culture and public policy. In my state, the Florida Humanities
    Council sponsored more than 900 public humanities programs last year--
    programs for school teachers, business leaders, elected officials,
    senior citizens and families--all with a total budget of only $1.5
    million. I want to repeat this because I believe it is impressive and
    important. With a total budget of only $1.5 million--about one-third of
    which comes from the federal government--the FHC sponsored more than
    900 programs throughout the state in a single year.
        Many of these programs play a vital role in reaching out to the
    small rural towns, which often have no cultural or educational
    institutions of their own. In such areas, these programs may be the
    only opportunity residents have to participate in live programs that
    offer insight into their own history, to join a reading and discussion
    group, or to discuss issues of common concern. Last February, for
    example, more than 300 residents of Bartow, Florida turned out to hear
    two prominent Florida writers, one black and one white, talk about
    growing up in the segregated world of 1950's Florida. The discussion
    after the program was every bit as enlightening as the program itself,
    as the black and white residents talked about race relations in their
    community over the past 40 years.
        Such discussions are taking place in communities large and small
    throughout the country. Mississippi's ``Hometown Initiative'' has
    residents of Booneville, Clarksdale and Aberdeen researching and
    documenting their local histories. The Washington Humanities
    Commission's ``Inquiring Minds'' speakers bureau sent speakers to 400
    presentations to schools, libraries and community centers in 35 of that
    state's 39 counties. The Pennsylvania Humanities Council's Speaker
    Bureau requests have doubled in three years.
        Education is integral to the mission of all state humanities
    councils, and each council has carved out a niche in the educational
    system of its state, striving to ensure the highest possible quality in
    classroom teaching. School programs and teacher seminars bring a wealth
    of humanities resources into the classroom. In Louisiana, Summer
    Teacher Institutes have reached a quarter of the state's middle and
    high school humanities teachers, who in turn teach 300,000 students
    annually. These 4-6 week intensive training session are taught by
    college professors in humanities subjects identified by teachers.
    Programs in Florida, Illinois and Minnesota provide week-long
    residential seminars designed to provide outstanding teachers with the
    opportunity to recharge intellectually, network with other excellent
    teachers and study with distinguished humanities professors.
        Responding to mandates from the Georgia legislature and the state
    board of education that public schools provide character education, the
    Georgia Humanities Council has a new character education initiative.
    They have developed a resource center, sponsored a statewide conference
    and conducted two summer teachers academies designed to help teachers
    to use the great stories found in literature and history as a way of
    looking at the virtues and values passed down from generation to
    generation and which form the foundation of a civil society. The New
    Mexico Endowment for the Humanities provides an annual history teachers
    institute and also sponsors that state's National History Day
    celebration and competition.
        Several state councils have developed innovative interactive
    humanities websites and cd roms, and many are working with teachers in
    their states to help them integrate this technology into their
    humanities curricula. Programs such as the Texas Council's ``Teaching
    Humanities with Technology,'' are making certain that humanities
    teachers are not left out of the information age.
        At the heart of many humanities programs are children and families,
    and nowhere is this more evident than in the expanding number of
    literacy and family reading programs undertaken by state humanities
    councils. In several states, including California, Minnesota, North
    Carolina, Utah, Washington and Alabama, a program known as Motheread/
    Fatheread is helping parents improve reading skills, build critical
    thinking ability and talk about literary themes and family issues.
    Through Motheread/Fatheread parents and children learn to appreciate
    reading, good books, and the questions and discussion that good books
    generate.
        The Vermont Humanities Council has been a pioneer in that state's
    efforts to combat illiteracy through ``Connections,'' a program that
    offers adult literacy students an opportunity to gather with their
    peers to discuss timeless themes and to make connections between the
    books they read and their own lives. This year the Vermont Humanities
    Council in partnership with the American Library Association and 27
    state humanities councils will offer ``Connections'' in 40 sites
    throughout the U.S. Through these exemplary programs and others
    elsewhere across the nation, humanities councils are helping parents
    improve reading skills while also providing opportunities for parents
    and children to examine their values, their relationship with each
    other, and their role in society.
        An effective way to extend the reach of limited resources is to
    develop productive partnerships, and this is an area in which state
    humanities councils are particularly skilled. An outstanding example is
    the partnership between the councils and the Smithsonian Institution
    Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES), which resulted in a program
    called Museum on Main Street, designed specifically to serve rural
    communities. This seven-year-old collaboration has made it possible for
    small towns in 22 states, including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio and
    Washington, to host high quality, portable Smithsonian exhibits and
    build humanities programs around them. Typically the exhibit is
    displayed in a community historical society or museum, and a local
    planning committee, working with the humanities councils, plans
    activities that explore the culture and history of the community and
    surrounding area. In a number of participating sites, the audience for
    the exhibit has exceeded the population of the town itself, and
    participants in almost all cases report that the effects of the program
    on the host institution and the community far outlast the few weeks
    that the exhibit is displayed.
        Rural museums are just one of many settings in which councils have
    made it possible for citizens who would otherwise not have this
    opportunity to participate in substantive humanities programs. The
    Minnesota Humanities Commission, to cite another example, designed a
    program for the elderly in nursing homes. Using an anthology of
    readings they compiled, the council trains volunteers to read aloud to
    those who can no longer read on their own. The New Hampshire Humanities
    Council has conducted a program called ``A Backward Glance,'' which
    involved scholars also working with nursing home residents to read
    memoirs and then write their own, assisted by the scholars and also
    local high school students who were enlisted to help with compiling
    production of the written product. In South Dakota, humanities programs
    on reservations help Native Americans to record and preserve their
    native culture.
        Other programs use the humanities to help citizens cope with the
    often bewildering and rapidly changing world around them. The
    Pennsylvania Humanities Council recently conducted a program involving
    non-traditional audiences in the inner cities and rural districts of
    southwestern Pennsylvania in exploring, through community forums and
    discussions both face-to-face and on-line, the impact of communications
    technology on their lives and American society as a whole. Of the 1,200
    people who participated in this very successful program, more than half
    did not have college degrees; three-quarters had never before attended
    a public humanities
        The board of directors of the Florida Humanities Council and our
    counterparts in state councils are keenly aware of the changing nature
    of the non-profit sector. We know that a secure financial future relies
    on our ability to diversify and strengthen our funding base. Over the
    past several years councils have been systematically analyzing programs
    to make certain they fit our mission, exploring new markets and
    investigating areas of potential profitability. All of us are engaged
    in an organization-changing process that has helped us to generate
    earned income, to attract new partners and to renew our confidence in
    the vital role that the public humanities plays in clarifying issues,
    building connections and creating a sense of community.
        Our efforts are producing results, as nearly two-thirds of the
    councils are receiving state funding, with several receiving
    appropriations of more than $500,000. Over 90 percent of the councils
    have received funds from foundations, corporations and individuals.
    While all councils are working hard to build their resources through
    state appropriations, membership support, corporate and foundation
    grants and entrepreneurial ventures, the demand for our programs and
    services far exceed what we can supply, and the federal support is
    critical to all other fund-raising efforts.
        Community grants programs, which enable local communities to plan
    and fund their own local programs, have been seriously affected by
    budget cuts, and most councils have reduced both the size and number of
    grants they are making. Literacy and family reading programs are
    substantially under funded in most states.
        Speakers Bureau programs, through which citizens are able to engage
    with high-quality scholars on a wide variety of ideas, are often the
    only live humanities programs available to residents of small
    communities in remote areas. And yet, many states report that they
    spend their entire Speakers Bureau budget in the first half of their
    fiscal year. Kentucky is only able to fulfill 20 percent of the
    requests for speakers it receives. Minnesota has eliminated its
    Speakers Bureau program entirely because they could not adequately
    sustain it.
        Consequently, I am here today to ask youno, to implore you--to
    increase funding for the state humanities councils through the Federal-
    State Partnership. Funding for the councils has been level for much of
    this decade; indeed, our purchasing power has eroded, yet, as I have
    tried to illustrate, our activities, demands and opportunities are
    great. We are meeting needs not only in public programming but also in
    education, teacher training, literacy and reading. Every dollar put
    into the Federal-State Partnership goes directly and expeditiously into
    the states and into programs that directly serve people. Even an
    additional $100,000 for the Florida Humanities Council, for example,
    could translate into 1,000 or perhaps even 1,100 programs rather than
    900, which would greatly benefit the civic and cultural life of
    Florida. It would allow us to expand the scope, breadth and geographic
    range of our efforts within each state. It would allow us to reach more
    of our people directly and personally with the programs that truly
    affect our values and our humanity.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Abberger, B. Lester, III, on behalf of the Federation of State
      Humanities Councils, prepared statement........................   780
    Able, Edward H., Jr., President and CEO, American Association of
      Museums, prepared statement....................................   774
    Abnee, Conn, Executive Director, Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium,
      prepared statement.............................................   743
    Alexander, Clarence, Chairman, Council of Athabascan Tribal
      Governments, prepared statement................................   645
    Allen, W. Ron, President, National Congress of American Indians,
      prepared statement.............................................   543
    Allen, W. Ron, Tribal Chairman and Executive Director, Jamestown
      S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement............................   580
    American:
        Public Power Association, prepared statement.................   734
        Sportsfishing Association, prepared statement................   490
        Symphony Orchestra League, prepared statement................   778
    Anderson, Ike, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian
      Affairs, Department of the Interior............................   129
    Apache, Burton, President, Alamo-Navajo School Board, prepared
      statement......................................................   588
    Arita, Steven J., Environmental Coordinator, Western States
      Petroleum Association, prepared statement......................   506
    Axfod, Craig, Program Director, Utah Environmental Congress,
      prepared statement.............................................   694

    Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Interior..........................   315
        Prepared statement...........................................   320
        Summary statement............................................   318
    Bajura, Richard, Director, National Research Center for Coal and
      Energy at West Virginia University, prepared statement.........   708
    Ballew, Tim, Chairman, Lummi Nation, prepared statement..........   574
    Barnett, Jack A., Executive Director, Colorado River Basin
      Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.....................   479
    Beetham, Mary Beth, Senior Associate, Defenders of Wildlife,
      prepared statement.............................................   497
    Begay, Jimmie C., Executive Director, Rock Point Community
      School, the Navajo Nation, prepared statement..................   673
    Belone, Phillip, Executive Director, Ramah Navajo School Board,
      Inc., Pine Hill, NM, prepared statement........................   587
    Bennett, Hon. George E., Chairman, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa
      and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, prepared statement...........   628
    Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, opening
      statement......................................................   190
    Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, prepared statement...........   669
    Bighorn, Spike, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
      Indian Reservation, prepared statement.........................   614
    Blazer, Karen Dixon, on behalf of Association of Navajo Community
      Controlled School Boards, Inc., prepared statement.............   584
    Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
        Opening statement............................................   131
        Prepared statements........................................212, 317
        Questions submitted by.....................................294, 433
    Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement......   749
    Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
        Opening statements.....................................47, 189, 316
        Questions submitted by................................103, 298, 439

    Campbell, Faith T., Ph.D., Washington Representative, on behalf
      of Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement................   699
    Campbell, Hon. Ben, Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
        Opening statement............................................    46
        Questions submitted by.....................................165, 181
    Chase, Mike, Endangered Species Coordinator, Kern County Farm
      Bureau, prepared statement.....................................   506
    Clark, Les, Vice President, Independent Oil Producers Agency,
      prepared statements..........................................506, 515
    Clark, Robert, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Area Health Corp.,
      prepared statement.............................................   562
    Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, prepared statements....475, 508
    Coal Utilization Research Council, prepared statement............   716
    Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, prepared
      statement......................................................     2
    Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, prepared
      statement......................................................   606
    Conrad, Gregory E., Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact
      Commission, prepared statement.................................   471
    Coontz, Glenn, Vice Chair, Department of Finance and
      Administrative Services, Urban Consortium Energy Task Force,
      prepared statement.............................................   755
    Council for Chemical Research, prepared statement................   745
    Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
        Opening statement............................................   224
        Questions submitted by.......................................   438
    Cukro, George, Executive Director, Black Mesa Community School,
      prepared statement.............................................   595
    Cunha, Manual, Jr., President, NISEI Farmers League, prepared
      statements...................................................506, 515

    Derbyshire, Dr. Frank, Director, University of Kentucky, Center
      for Applied Energy Research, prepared statement................   736
    Dickens, Michael, Chief Executive Officer, Integrated Building
      and Construction Solutions, prepared statement.................   768
    Dombeck, Mike, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture..   187
        Prepared statement...........................................   201
        Summary statement............................................   197
    Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
      submitted by.......................................164, 177, 289, 427
    Dorgan, Hon. Bryan L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, questions
      submitted by..................................................39, 460

    Ebel, John E., Ph.D., Director, the Weston Observatory of Boston
      College, prepared statement....................................   539
    Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, prepared statement.   746
    Energy Committee of the Council on Engineering, American Society
      of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement....................   738
    Evans, Peter H., Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board,
      prepared statement.............................................   535
    Evetts, Robert M., President, National Association of Abandoned
      Mine Land Programs, prepared statement.........................   704
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, questions
      submitted by........................................42, 184, 311, 465
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement...   616
    Frank, Billy, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries
      Commission, prepared statement.................................   577
    Fuel Cell Commercialization Group, prepared statement............   733
    Fumich, George, Program Advisor, National Research Center for
      Coal and Energy at West Virginia University, prepared statement   708

    Gainesville, FL, city of, prepared statement.....................   523
    Garcia, Martha, President, Ramah Navajo Chapter, prepared
      statement......................................................   597
    General Electric Power Systems, prepared statements............713, 761
    Geringer, Hon. Jim, Governor, State of Wyoming, prepared
      statement......................................................   481
    Gilmartin, Hon. Tim E., Mayor, Metlakatla Indian Community,
      prepared statement.............................................   675
    Gipp, David M., President, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, prepared
      statement......................................................   660
    Goergen, Michael T., Jr., Director, Forest Policy, Society of
      American Foresters, prepared statement.........................   696
    Goerl, Vincette, Deputy Chief, Chief Financial Officer, Forest
      Service, Department of Agriculture.............................   187
    Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
        Opening statements.............................1, 45, 129, 187, 325
        Questions submitted by............................62, 167, 239, 354
    Gover, Kevin, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
      Department of the Interior.....................................   129
        Prepared statement...........................................   145
        Summary statement............................................   142
    Guenthardt, Hon. Robert, Tribal Ogema (Chief Executive), Little
      River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan, prepared statement...   664

    Hamilton, Lee H., Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center
      for Scholars...................................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    31
        Summary statement............................................    28
    Hansen, Kenneth C., Chairman, Samish Indian Tribe of Washington
      State, prepared statement......................................   656
    Havatone, Earl, Chairman, Hualapai Tribal Council of Arizona,
      prepared statement.............................................   554
    Hazard, Holly E., Executive Director, Doris Day Animal League,
      prepared statement.............................................   489
    Heyman, I. Michael, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution...........     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
        Summary statement............................................    18
    Hocker, Jean, President, the Land Trust Alliance, prepared
      statement......................................................   527
    Holder, Gerald, Dean, University of Pittsburgh, prepared
      statement......................................................   710
    Holmer, Steve, Campaign Coordinator, American Lands Alliance,
      prepared statement.............................................   692
    Holmes, Constance D., Senior Vice President, Policy National
      Mining Association, prepared statement.........................   482
    Huffman, Dr. Gerald P., Director, Consortium for Fossil Fuel
      Liquefaction Science, prepared statement.......................   706
    Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement..........   502
    Hunsinger, Scott, Director, Non-Academic Programs, Shiprock
      Alternative Schools, Inc., prepared statement..................   591
    Huntington, Gilbert, Co-Chair Upper Yukon, Yukon River Drainage
      Fisheries Association, prepared statement......................   507
    Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc., prepared statement...............   732

    Ivanoff, Larry, Chairman, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium,
      prepared statement.............................................   618

    James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, City of Newark, NJ, prepared statement   518
    James, Ted, Planning Director, Kern County Planning Department,
      prepared statement.............................................   506
    Janger, Stephen A., President, Close Up Foundation, prepared
      statement......................................................   512
    John, Hon. Ismael, Senator, Nitijela of the Marshall Islands,
      prepared statement.............................................   690
    Johnson, Myrna, Director, ORCA, prepared statement...............   703
    Jones, Hon. Gerald J., Tribal Chairman, Port Gamble S'Klallam
      Tribe, prepared statement......................................   681
    Joseph, Jason L., Chairman, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, prepared
      state-
      ment...........................................................   568

    Kavanagh, Lawrence W., Vice President, Manufacturing and
      Technology, American Iron and Steel Institute, prepared
      statement......................................................   727
    Kenahan, Robert E., Tribal Police Chief, Narragansett Indian
      Tribe, prepared statement......................................   643
    Kenny, Michael P., Executive Officer, California Air Resources
      Board, prepared statement......................................   515
    Ketchum, Dee, Chief, Tribal Council of the Delaware Tribe of
      Indians, Bartlesville, OK, prepared statement..................   624
    Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research
      Association, prepared statement................................   720
    Kohl, Hon. U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
        Opening statement............................................   214
        Questions submitted by.......................................   183

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions
      submitted by.................................................310, 452
    Lewis, Robert, Deputy Chief, Research and Technology Development,
      Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......................   187
    Lonetree, Jacob, President, Ho-Chunk Nation, prepared statement..   601
    Lopeman, David, Chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared
      statement......................................................   571
    Lyons, James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
      Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.........   187
        Prepared statement...........................................   195
        Summary statement............................................   190

    Manning, Gloria, Acting Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
      Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......................   187
    Maulson, Tom, Chairman, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
      Chippewa Indians, prepared statement...........................   611
    Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
      prepared statement.............................................   772
    McCabe, Preston, President, Pinon Chapter, the Navajo Nation,
      prepared statement.............................................   592
    McDougle, Janice, Acting Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry   187
    Meadows, James, Executive Director, Presidio Trust, prepared
      statement......................................................   520
    Merculief, Hon. Boris R., President, St. George Island
      Traditional Council, St. George Island, AK, prepared statement.   632
    Miami Beach, FL, city of, prepared statement.....................   517
    Moore, Donald Sr., Chairman, Bad River Band of Lake Superior
      Chippewa Indians, prepared statement...........................   608
    Morrow, Richard, Vice President, Southern California Gas Company,
      and Chairman of the American Gas Cooling Center, prepared
      statement......................................................   766
    Mosman, James D., Chief Executive Officer, State Teachers'
      Retirement System, State of California, prepared statement.....   718
    Murphy, Charles, Board President and Chairman, Standing Rock
      Sioux Tribe, prepared statement................................   660
    National:
        Association of Energy Service Companies, prepared statement..   753
        Association of State Energy Officials, prepared statement....   710
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
          statement..................................................   509
        Corn Growers Association, prepared statement.................   741
        Indian Child Welfare Association, prepared statement.........   652
    Natural Gas Industry, prepared statement.........................   758
    Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement..............................   649
    Norton Sound Health Corporation, prepared statement..............   641

    Old Chief, William, Chairman, Blackfeet Tribe, Blackfeet Indian
      Reservation, prepared statement................................   666
    Ornithological Council, prepared statement.......................   486
    Owens, John M., Associate Dean for Research, Auburn University,
      prepared statement.............................................   710
    Patrick, Barbara, member, Board Supervisors of Kern County and
      member, California Air Resources Board, prepared statement.....   515
    Patt, Olney Jr., Chairman, Tribal Council, Confederated Tribes of
      the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, prepared statement.....   638
    Perschel, Robert, Chairman, Northern Forest Alliance, prepared
      statement......................................................   529
    Peter, Hon. Neptali, Mayor, Enewetak Atoll on behalf of the
      Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement..   690
    Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, prepared statement........   729
    Pinkham, Jaime, President, Intertribal Timber Council, prepared
      statement......................................................   620
    Powell, Earl A., III, Director, National Gallery of Art..........     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
        Summary statement............................................    13
    Poynter, Ken, Executive Director, Native American Fish & Wildlife
      Society, prepared statement....................................   495
    Preston, Victor R., Chairman, Susanville Indian Rancheria,
      prepared statement.............................................   658
    Pugmire, Ronald J., Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Research,
      Professor of Chemical and Fuels Engineering, University of
      Utah, prepared statement.......................................   709
    Queton, Hilton G., Executive Director, American Indian Graduate
      Center, Albuquerque, NM, prepared statement....................   549
    Quickel, Dr. Kenneth E., Jr., President, Joslin Diabetes Center,
      prepared statement.............................................   627
    Quinn, Timothy H., Acting General Manager, Metropolitan Water
      District of Southern California, prepared statement............   474
    Rainwater-Sande, Hon. Stephanie, President, the Ketchikan Indian
      Corporation, prepared statement................................   630
    Randall, Vincent, Chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation, prepared
      statement......................................................   556
    Reheis, Catherine H., Managing Coordinator, Western States
      Petroleum Association, prepared statement......................   515
    Reicher, Dan, Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Energy................................    45
    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, questions submitted
      by.............................................................   458
    Rice, Stan, Jr., President, Board of Directors, Prescott Indian
      Tribe, prepared statement......................................   648
    Richardson, Hon. Bill, Secretary of Energy, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Energy................................    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Summary statement............................................    48
    Rosebud Sioux Tribe, prepared statement..........................   551
    Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement....................   671
    Sharkey, Andrew G., III, President and CEO, American Iron and
      Steel Institute, prepared statement............................   727
    Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, prepared statement..................   677
    Simmons, Roger, Consul General, Canada, letter from..............   494
    Simpkins, Eric L., Energy Research Corporation, prepared
      statement......................................................   769
    Siyuja, Thomas, Chairman, Havasupai Tribal Council, prepared
      statement......................................................   557
    Smith, Maj. Gen. Scott B. (U.S. Army Ret.), Chief Executive
      Officer, Western Research Institute, prepared statement........   722
    Southern Environmental Law Center, prepared statement............   701
    Sparrowe, Rollin D., President, Wildlife Management Institute,
      prepared statement.............................................   476
    Stevens, Christine, Secretary, Society for Animal Protective
      Legislation, prepared statement................................   505
    Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, question submitted
      by.............................................................   288
    Stewart, Ron, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation, Forest
      Service, Department of Agriculture.............................   187
    Styles, Gary A. Manager, Planning and Analysis Power Systems
      Development Facility, Southern Company Services, Inc., prepared
      statement......................................................   724
    Sublette, Kerry L., Sarkeys Professor of Environmental
      Engineering, University of Tulsa, Director, Integrated
      Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC), prepared statement..   583

    Thompson, Clyde, Deputy Chief, Business Operations, Forest
      Service, Department of Agriculture.............................   187
    Thompson, Thomas M., Acting Special Trustee for American Indians,
      Office of the Special Trustee, Department of the Interior......   129
        Prepared statement...........................................   135
        Summary statement............................................   132
    Thurmond, Hon. Strom, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, questions
      submitted by...................................................   467
    Tierney, John W., Professor, University of Pittsburgh, prepared
      statement......................................................   710
    Tom, Young Jeff, President, Mariano Lake Community School, Inc.
      of the Navajo Nation, prepared statement.......................   600
    Tsosie, Wallace, board member, Greasewood Springs Community
      School, Inc., prepared statement...............................   596
    Tucker, Hon. Daniel, Vice Chairman, Sycuan Band of Mission
      Indians, prepared statement....................................   567
    Tutt, James M., President, Crownpoint Institute of Technology,
      Crownpoint, NM, prepared statement.............................   557

    University of New Mexico, prepared statement.....................   532
    Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement....   537

    Ward, Justin R., Senior Policy Specialist, the Natural Resources
      Defense Council, prepare statement.............................   700
    Ward, Peter J., Chairman, United States Park Police Labor
      Committee, Fraternal Order of Police, prepared statement.......   524
    Webb, David O., Vice President, Government Programs Services
      Ccenter, Gas Research Institute, prepared statement............   764
    Wender, Irving, Distinguished University Research Professor,
      University of Pittsburgh, prepared statement...................   710
    Wilde, Harry, Sr., Co-Chair, Lower Yukon, Yukon River Drainage
      Fisheries Association, prepared statement......................   507
    Wilker, Lawrence J., President, John F. Kennedy Center for the
      Performing Arts................................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
        Summary statement............................................     3
    Wopsock, Ronald J., Chairman, Tribal Business Committee of the
      Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, prepared
      statement......................................................   564
    Wynne, Bruce, Chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   560

    Yallup, William F., Sr., Chairman, Yakama Indian Nation, prepared
      statement......................................................   602

    Zimmerman, Gerald R., Executive Director, Colorado River Board of
      California, prepared statement.................................   479

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    Additional committee questions...................................   239
    Administrative appeals...........................................   229
    Allocation of funds:
        Among the regions............................................   303
        Criteria.....................................................   210
    Beetles..........................................................   212
        Douglas fire.................................................   225
    Budget:
        Accountability...............................................   188
        President's..................................................   202
        Resolution...................................................   187
        Restructuring................................................   189
        Structure reform.............................................   238
    Carson National Forest drainage problem..........................   291
    Clean water action plan..........................................   193
    Crown jewel mine.................................................   235
    Drought assessment...............................................   222
    Education........................................................   219
    Elk River limited partner land acquisition and donation..........   308
    Environmental litigation.........................................   221
    Financial accountability.......................................200, 252
    Fire.............................................................   239
        Risk assessment..............................................   222
    Forest:
        Access.....................................................210, 213
        Health and sustainability....................................   191
        Initiative, four corners sustainable.........................   290
        Management, balanced.........................................   217
        Plan development process.....................................   231
        Service Accountability.......................................   206
            Reorganization...........................................   296
        State and private............................................   254
        Stewardship contracts........................................   295
        Transitional management......................................   218
        Urban and community..........................................   193
    General........................................................285, 294
        Administration...............................................   237
    GPRA.............................................................   252
    High-risk agency list............................................   237
    Highland scenic highway landslides...............................   307
    In-holdings......................................................   223
    Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan.........225, 233, 283
    Insects and disease..............................................   193
        Gypsy moth...................................................   214
    Institute:
        Of Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research.........   207
        Partnerships.................................................   208
    Invasive species.................................................   227
    Land:
        Acquisition priorities.......................................   223
        Legacy initiative............................................   191
        Management planning..........................................   283
    Law enforcement..................................................   284
    Legislative proposals............................................   264
    Maintenance......................................................   194
        Multiple-use.................................................   201
    Mining Act implications..........................................   237
    Mining laws......................................................   238
        Interpretation of............................................   236
    Monongahela National Forest......................................   209
        Radio system.................................................   303
        Watershed restoration needs of...............................   308
    Natural Resource Agenda..........................................   203
    New burn policy..................................................   294
    New legislation for more revenues................................   297
    Noxious weeds....................................................   226
    Payments to states........................................194, 213, 217
    Prescribed:
        Burns........................................................   227
        Fire.........................................................   228
    Presidential priorities..........................................   195
    Public involvement...............................................   225
    Puget Sound map photographs...............................192, 234, 238
    Record of decision authority.....................................   232
    Recreation.......................................................   242
    Regional office move.............................................   215
    Research.........................................................   259
        Centers, West Virginia.......................................   306
    Roadless moratorium..............................................   247
    Roads..........................................................194, 211
        And mineral closures.........................................   295
        And timber sales.............................................   228
    Rural community assistance.......................................   290
    Seneca Rocks Visitor Center......................................   301
    Smoke jumpers ceremony in Montana................................   296
    Southwest conservation strategy..................................   291
    Surplus land disposal/inholder relief............................   289
    Sustainable forest management....................................   199
    Timber harvests..................................................   199
        Program......................................................   282
    Tongass:
        Land management plan.......................................229, 230
        Record of decision...........................................   215
    Tongass Timber Reform Act........................................   216
    U.S. Forest Service--litigation costs............................   292
        Southwestern drought.........................................   293
    Watersheds.......................................................   198
        Improvements.................................................   209
    Wood Education and Resource Center.............................207, 298

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    Accomplishments..................................................    62
    Additional committee questions...................................    62
    Boiler system, low emission......................................    68
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000.................................    50
    Carbon sequestration.............................................    65
    Clean fuels research, advanced...................................   106
    Climate change..................................................61, 119
        Activities...................................................   126
    Coal technology, clean.........................48, 53, 54, 83, 114, 125
    Economic regulation..............................................    54
    Energy conservation..............................................    90
        Efficiency...................................................    50
        Information administration..................................54, 103
        Use measurement..............................................    60
    Federal and private sector partnerships..........................    56
    Federal Energy Management Program................................    93
    Federal Technology Center......................................122, 127
    Fossil energy research and development............52, 55, 103, 125, 114
        Natural gas..................................................    74
        Research--Coal...............................................   105
    Fuel Cells......................................................77, 114
    Great Plains gasification plant..................................    72
    Indirect fired cycle.............................................    69
    Industries of the future.........................................    98
    Lighting and appliance standards.................................    92
    Liquefaction:
        Direct.......................................................    66
        Indirect.....................................................    67
    Metallurgical processes, advanced................................    83
    Methane, coal mine...............................................   113
        Hydrates.....................................................   112
    Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves...........................53, 88
    Program direction................................................    82
    Research and environmental technology............................67, 69
        Standards, building..........................................    90
        Technology development.......................................    71
    Restructuring....................................................    64
        Electric power industry......................................    57
        Research--natural gas........................................   112
    Rocky Flats......................................................    58
    Science, security and energy: Powering the 21st century..........    49
    Source measurement techniques, site versus.......................    65
    Standards, appliance efficiency..................................   123
    Strategic Petroleum Reserves.....................................52, 87
    Technology, oil..................................................    79
        Ramjet.......................................................   103
        Transportation...............................................    96
    Turbine systems, advanced........................................   102
        Programs.....................................................   113
    Vehicles, alternative-fueled.....................................    59
    Vision 21........................................................   110
    Waste isolation pilot plant......................................    58

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

    Additional committee questions...................................   164
    Alcohol and substance abuse......................................   149
    Budget summary, fiscal year 2000.................................   146
    Construction.....................................................   148
        Education....................................................   149
    Contract support.................................................   173
    Environmental management.........................................   177
    Fractionation legislation........................................   141
    Ishi's remains...................................................   186
    Law enforcement................................................150, 172
    Organization.....................................................   146
    Programs:
        Indian, operation of.........................................   147
        Land consolidation pilot.....................................   183
        Trust funds..................................................   184
    Schools..........................................................   152
        Chief Leschi.................................................   169
        Construction bonding initiative..............................   167
        Grant, unlawful investments by...............................   171
        Improvement and repair.......................................   169
        More Teachers in Native American.............................   185
        Phased funding for construction..............................   152
    Secretary's Trust Management Improvement Project.................   150
    Special Initiatives..............................................   148
    Tribal courts....................................................   149
    Water rights litigation..........................................   176

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional committee questions...................................   354
    Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, role of..............   329
    Alaska projects..................................................   379
    American Samoa...................................................   422
    AML increases....................................................   384
    Animas-LaPlata...................................................   336
    Automated land and mineral record system.......................349, 364
    BIA school construction..........................................   464
    Biological Resources Division in USGS............................   350
    Brown Tree Snake.................................................   423
    Budget:
        Overview.....................................................   320
        Priorities...................................................   345
    Bureau:
        Of Indian Affairs..........................................418, 433
        Of Land Management...........................................   364
    Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge...........................   446
    Canadian Lynx....................................................   335
    Central HAZMAT...................................................   373
    Coalbed methane permits..........................................   365
    Commendation to Park Service employees...........................   341
    Competition with the private sector..............................   388
    Construction program reform......................................   394
        Projects.....................................................   413
    Contract support on tribal contracts.............................   418
    Contractor offsets...............................................   386
    Corridor H.......................................................   326
    Crown Butte Agreement............................................   437
    Crown Jewel mine application rejection...........................   351
        Project......................................................   368
    Dams.............................................................   352
        Removal......................................................   414
    Deepwater issues.................................................   380
    Departmental management..........................................   354
    Destin dome......................................................   376
    Determinations of eligibility....................................   329
        By the National Register of Historic Places..................   328
    Domestic energy industries.......................................   436
    Endangered species water needs...................................   330
    Energy conservation..............................................   403
    Equipment replacement............................................   415
    Everglades land acquisition......................................   415
        Modified water delivery system...............................   413
    External administrative costs....................................   405
    Facility condition assessments...................................   404
    FDR Memorial.....................................................   414
    Fines............................................................   359
    Fire.............................................................   367
    Fish and Wildlife FWS--Silvery Minnow............................   427
        Service......................................................   391
            Birding Guide............................................   463
            Easements................................................   462
            Wolf Questionnaire.......................................   427
    Five year plans..................................................   356
    Focus on emerging biological problems............................   324
    GAO report.......................................................   348
    General..........................................................   374
    George W. Beaver.................................................   339
    Glen Echo Park...................................................   413
    Government Performance and R354, 371, 382, 387, 389, 392, 415, 419, 426
    Grazing permits..................................................   366
    Grizzly bear reintroduction....................................339, 435
    Harpers Ferry Center for Interpretation and Design...............   441
    Harpers Ferry National Historical Park...........................   439
    Hawaiian impacts.................................................   425
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities.....................   412
    Impact assistance................................................   424
    Independence for functions of contract rate setting and audit in
      the Department.................................................   363
    Indian gaming....................................................   349
        Trust fund...................................................   336
    Initiative:
        Appalachian streams..........................................   386
        Coral reef...................................................   422
        Lands legacy.................................................   321
        Natural resources............................................   397
    Inspections......................................................   382
    International activities.........................................   376
    Kanawha-New River water-quality assessment.......................   451
    Keeper responsibilities..........................................   327
    Kempthorne bill..................................................   345
    Land and Water Conservation Fund...............................359, 397
    Leafy Spurge at Theodore Roosevelt National Park.................   462
    Leetown Science Center...........................................   449
    Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Project.............................   461
        National Historic Trail......................................   460
    Litigation costs.................................................   432
    Livability.......................................................   322
    Lower Mississippi River 10-year plan.............................   343
    Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan.........................   434
    Mandan on-a-slant and Lewis and Clark............................   460
    Mandated use of critical habitat designation.....................   331
    Marine Minerals Research Center..................................   377
    Minerals Management Service......................................   374
    Montana mineral withdrawal.......................................   437
    Natchez Trace Parkway maintenance................................   342
    National:
        Center for Preservation Technology and Training..............   410
        Conservation Training Center.................................   445
        Constitution Center..........................................   412
        Fish Hatcheries Program......................................   448
        Park Service.................................................   394
        Petroleum Reserve of Alaska................................334, 371
        Recreation and Preservation..................................   409
    New Mexico drought...............................................   330
    New River Gorge National River...................................   443
    North Star project...............................................   333
    Off-stream storage sites.......................................338, 339
    Office of Insular Affairs........................................   421
    Office of Surface Mining.........................................   384
    Offsetting receipts..............................................   374
    Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge......................   447
    Onshore oil and gas regulations..................................   438
    Otter Creek......................................................   337
    Park:
        Police.......................................................   400
        Service:
            Acquisition..............................................   416
            Housing..................................................   417
    PILT funding.....................................................   434
    Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse....................................   335
    Presidio.........................................................   401
    Prior Service Trust Fund.........................................   425
    Problem with offsets.............................................   346
    Program coordination among the four agencies.....................   347
    Recreation Fee Demonstration Program...........................347, 356
    Reengineering....................................................   378
    Refuge revenue sharing...........................................   392
    Repair and rehabilitation........................................   399
    Restoration......................................................   322
    Restoring:
        Ecosystems...................................................   322
        Parks, refuges and public lands..............................   323
        Species......................................................   323
    Rock Creek Parkway telecommunications tower......................   341
    Royalty-in-kind..................................................   378
    Safe visits to public lands......................................   324
    Salmon recovery..................................................   353
    Sand and gravel..................................................   379
    Save America's treasures.........................................   411
    Science..........................................................   323
    Seven generations into the future and past.......................   325
    Southwestern drought.............................................   431
    Sportfish restoration grants to States...........................   391
    State minimum funding............................................   386
    Surplus land disposal/inholder relief............................   430
    Taxes, payments in lieu of.......................................   463
    Timeliness of approving projects funded with recreation
      demonstration fee receipts.....................................   347
    Tribal trust management improvement..............................   326
    Tribally controlled community colleges...........................   463
    U.S. Geological Survey...........................................   388
    United States Park Police........................................   467
    Valuation........................................................   375
    Vanishing treasures..............................................   399
    Virgin Islands...................................................   421
    Water rights.....................................................   332
    Wild horse and burro.............................................   370
    Y2K..............................................................   404

                         Office of the Special Trustee

    Additional committee questions...................................   164
    Budget:
        Future requests..............................................   138
        Priorities...................................................   142
    Fiscal year:
        1999 supplemental appropriations.............................   136
        2000 budget request..........................................   137
            Funding..................................................   137
    GAO report.......................................................   139
    IIM litigation...................................................   140
    Land fractionation...............................................   140
    Improvements, staff support for..................................   139
    Trust:
        Functions, consolidation of..................................   138
        Indian, management reform progress...........................   135

                 JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

    American College Theater Festival Participants, 1998.............    12
        University/College...........................................    12
    Appropriated Funds, use of.......................................     8
    Board of Trustees................................................     7
    Budget request...................................................     1
    Fiscal year 2000:
        Capital Repair Program.......................................     9
        Operations and Maintenance Program...........................     9
    General Accounting Office (GAO) audit requirement................     9
    History..........................................................     7
    Income, sources of...............................................     8
    Kennedy Center:
        Artistic programming.........................................    10
        Building.....................................................     8
        Education programming........................................    10
    Performing Arts for Everyone.....................................    11

                            NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

    Art care funding.................................................    39
    Attendance.......................................................    38
    Budget request...................................................     1
    Fiscal year 2000 request.........................................    14
    Paul Mellon's bequest, restrictions on...........................    38

                            SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

    Additional committee questions...................................    39
    Affiliations program.............................................    18
    Budget request...................................................     1
    Capital accounts.................................................    22
    Facilities, repair, restoration and alteration of................    23
    Heyman's objectives, Secretary...................................    23
    Internet access..................................................    19
    Lewis and Clark..................................................    42
    Museum of the American Indian....................................    39
    National Air and Space Museum--Dulles center.....................    35
    Outreach Programs................................................    19
    Rural initiative.................................................    41
        Participating communities....................................    41
    Smithsonian:
        Business ventures............................................    36
        Environmental research center................................    21
        Fiscal year 2000 budget request..............................    21
        Institution traveling exhibition service.....................    19
        Smithsonian research institutes..............................    20
    Star-Spangled Banner preservation project........................    20
    Visitorship......................................................    20
    Washington, outreach to areas outside of.........................    40
    Woodward and Lothrop building....................................    37

                WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

    Budget:
        Reductions...................................................    34
        Request......................................................     1
    Center:
        Activities at the............................................    32
        Where the, goes from here....................................    33

                                       -